Pharmaceutical drugs should not be advertised to the general public

[Blalron]

On the rare occasions that I watch TV anymore, I always get annoyed at commercials for prescription only drugs. "Ask your doctor if the Purple Pill is right for you!"

No! Tell your doctor your symptoms, then he will tell you what's right for you! There's a very strong possibility that the "purple pill" isn't right for you, and the doctor will have to waste both your time and his time explaining to you why he's not going to prescribe it. This drives up medical costs for everyone, as do the billions of the dollars spent on these advertisements.

Other countries ban these types of commercials. So should the United States.

[Ravenman]

I completely agree. I would be okay with ads that say something like, "If you are suffering from erectile dysfunction/high blood pressure with achy feet/the condition known as "hot dog fingers," see your doctor to learn about treatment options."

No mention of a drug name allowed. Let people know that there might be new medications to treat specific ailments, but let the doctors choose the right medicine.

[Peremensoe]

Of course, pharmaceuticals are promoted to doctors as well on bases other than their medical efficacy.

IME this discussion usually winds up with the conclusion that the profit motive subverts good medicine.

[John Mace]

I prefer to decide for myself what I will do with information, and don't want the government telling me where I am able to get it.

[Blalron]

I prefer to decide for myself what I will do with information, and don't want the government telling me where I am able to get it.

You're simply not qualified to evaluate the information on a 30 second commercial for a drug that can have complex interactions with the body.

[elucidator]

Not that I disagree, Big John, but that you phrased that rather awkwardly. I doubt that you have any problem with being offered information, regardless of source. Disinformation, however....

[elucidator]

"Ask your doctor today about the Brown Acid! Mmmmm-good!"

[Blalron]

I prefer to decide for myself what I will do with information, and don't want the government telling me where I am able to get it.

And I prefer that the (already exorbitantly expensive) cost of prescription drugs isn't unneccesarily increased to pay for the cost of advertisements (which is estimated to be about a quarter of the overall cost of the drugs (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm)).

[John Mace]

You're simply not qualified to evaluate the information on a 30 second commercial for a drug that can have complex interactions with the body.
And that's why they are offered only as prescription drugs. So, I'll ask my doctor about it if I want, and I don't need you to babysit me through the process, thank-you-very-much.

[Blalron]

And that's why they are offered only as prescription drugs. So, I'll ask my doctor about it if I want, and I don't need you to babysit me through the process, thank-you-very-much.

And we pay a hefty price for your freedom. Nobody is stopping you from doing a Google search. I just want to stop pharmaceutical companies from pissing billions away on advertisements to a general public not knowledgeable enough to benefit from them.

[John Mace]

And I prefer that the (already exorbitantly expensive) cost of prescription drugs isn't unneccesarily increased to pay for the cost of advertisements (which is estimated to be about a quarter of the overall cost of the drugs (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm)).
And I prefer to be given a pony. I demand a law that gives me one.

Besides, prices are set by supply and demand, not necessarily by advertising costs. If you eliminate advertising and suppress demand, that could easily cause the price to go up, not down. I'll also note that you are incorrect in saying that they spend 25% of the cost of the drug. They spend 25% of their sales dollars. Your study also does not distinguish between prescription drug advertising and non-prescription drugs.

[pkbites]

This drives up medical costs for everyone, as do the billions of the dollars spent on these advertisements.


Advertising cars drives their cost up. Why do I need Ford to advertise different models of cars when I can just go to the dealership, tell the staff what kind of automotive needs I have and they can tell me what car I should buy.



Other countries ban these types of commercials. So should the United States.

Legal products should not be banned from advertising in a free country. This should include pharmaceuticals, cigarettes, hard liquor, and Nevada brothels.


There are far too many drugs out there for a doctor to know all of them. About a year ago I mentioned Uloric to my Dr. and he had never heard of it. He called me about a week later and said he looked up on it and felt it was in fact a better alternative to the Allopurinol he had me on. Had I not mentioned it from a magazine ad I saw, I wouldn't have gotten it.

[straight man]

Purely out of curiosity, has anybody here ever gone to their doctor and requested a specific product? It would never occur to me to do such a thing, personally.

[Jackmannii]

Pharmaceutical drugs are not like other consumer products, in that they are not available for direct sales to the general public, for good reason. They are capable of both great benefit and great harm and it has long been viewed that they should be provided to people on the basis of specialized training and knowledge. Therefore it seems entirely reasonable to me that direct advertising of pharmaceuticals to people without such knowledge can be regulated and banned. One of the compelling reasons (to me) for banning these ads is that they drive up costs related to the prescribing of new drugs under patent protection, which are usually much more expensive than older, competing drugs without having demonstrated they are more effective (and are marketed with much less practical knowledge of their side effects). Since governments pay for health care, they have a legitimate interest in keeping costs down, and this includes the cost of new drugs which are not superior to the old ones (but which consumers are led to believe are better).

The general argument that advertising drives up costs is less compelling for me. Should we ban ads for auto insurance, a product which everybody must buy but which has a significant advertising-related cost built in?*

*If I were made Media Czar, one thing I'd do is declare a six-month moratorium on the advertising of auto insurance and cellphones/cellphone service, on the principle that we badly need a break from these ads. The drug ads would be flat-out banned.

[John Mace]

Purely out of curiosity, has anybody here ever gone to their doctor and requested a specific product? It would never occur to me to do such a thing, personally.
Did you read the post right above yours?

[pkbites]

Purely out of curiosity, has anybody here ever gone to their doctor and requested a specific product? It would never occur to me to do such a thing, personally.

:confused:

I just said that I did:

About a year ago I mentioned Uloric to my Dr. and he had never heard of it. He called me about a week later and said he looked up on it and felt it was in fact a better alternative to the Allopurinol he had me on. Had I not mentioned it from a magazine ad I saw, I wouldn't have gotten it.

[pkbites]

If I were made Media Czar, one thing I'd do is declare a six-month moratorium on the advertising of auto insurance and cellphones/cellphone service, on the principle that we badly need a break from these ads.


Until your head is cut off and stuck on a pike because we need a break from fascism.

[straight man]

Did you read the post right above yours?
:smack: :smack: :smack:

(And yes, but apparently not very carefully.)

[gonzomax]

Purely out of curiosity, has anybody here ever gone to their doctor and requested a specific product? It would never occur to me to do such a thing, personally.

People must. It is the mainstay of pharm advertising.

[An Arky]

That's all well and good, but they should also stop the "hot" pharm saleswomen from waltzing into my doctor's office and whoring their wares while I'm waiting for my appointment, as well.

[Acid Lamp]

Until your head is cut off and stuck on a pike because we need a break from fascism.

Advertising isn't a right. Advertisers, their sponsors, the networks, and the media outlets themselves all have, and exercise, control over what is disseminated to the public for consumption. A person, group, or a company can say whatever they want under the first; that does not mean we have to allow them access to all media formats. Let them advertise in medical journals, trade publications and general consumer magazines where context appropriate.

[aruvqan]

Purely out of curiosity, has anybody here ever gone to their doctor and requested a specific product? It would never occur to me to do such a thing, personally.

I do a lot of research on my medical conditions, and come up with questions, comments and will ask about specific meds I want my doctor to investigate the use of in my specific conditions.

Not many generic nonDopers seem to do much research other than seeing a commercial for the newest pill and ask for it.

[Marley23]

Other countries ban these types of commercials. So should the United States.
These types of commercials weren't allowed in the U.S. until 1997. Of course, advertising and spending have both skyrocketed in that time.

[randomface]

Purely out of curiosity, has anybody here ever gone to their doctor and requested a specific product? It would never occur to me to do such a thing, personally.

I have. I experienced symptoms of narcolepsy for years and when it finally got to be more than I could handle with massive amounts of caffeine, I went to a doctor about it. When my diagnosis was official I requested specific drugs due to the decreased side effects they had compared to more effective and cheaper drugs. It has worked out quite well.

[suranyi]

Purely out of curiosity, has anybody here ever gone to their doctor and requested a specific product? It would never occur to me to do such a thing, personally.

I'm sure people have asked their doctor about Ambien, for example. It's suggested on message boards all the time.

[pkbites]

Advertising isn't a right. Advertisers, their sponsors, the networks, and the media outlets themselves all have, and exercise, control over what is disseminated to the public for consumption. A person, group, or a company can say whatever they want under the first; that does not mean we have to allow them access to all media formats. Let them advertise in medical journals, trade publications and general consumer magazines where context appropriate.


This is crap on so many levels. By your standard almost every product would be limited to advertising in specific areas instead of general ones.

The public has every right to know what options there are regarding medications, and the pharmaceutical companies have every right to tell the public what those options are.

What the OP is really all about is class warfare. The pharm companies have products that the public wants and needs, and the sonsabitches have the audacity to make a profit selling it instead of giving it away for the greater good.
And they're taking some of that profit to advertise so they can (:eek:GASP!:eek:) make more profit! What the OP wants is a thinly veiled form of communistic fascism.

[Markxxx]

I ask my doctor and he says "yes" or "no," why is this such a hard thing.

I say "I want some Viagra" he says "Why?" I tell thim and HE decides not me.

So what's the harm. Is a ten second question gonna hurt?

[Hirka T'Bawa]

Personally, I think TV ads for prescription medication should be banned. However, I have no problem with Magazine ads (as long as they keep requiring the prescribing information with it, makes an ad at least 3 pages normally), and advertising to pharmacies and doctor offices. Oh, and bring back my free pens! I miss having all those nice drug company pens.

TV ads have the disadvantage that they don't actually give you any information on the medication. All they say is "drug blah blah treats blah, and can have these serious side effects (which everyone ignores or makes fun of anyhow), now ask your doctor today about blah blah!". At least in magazines we can read more if we are interested, especially in the pharmacy magazines I read that have the whole package insert normally.

But, mostly, I want my free pens back! :D

[Fear Itself]

I would never ask my doctor about a drug advertised on TV, because I presume that everything they say is a lie. The campaigns to get everyone over the age of 40 on statin drugs when they do very little to reduce heart attack or stroke, convinced me the credibility of big pharma is not much better than the homeopathic hucksters.

They should, however, be banned because their 3D animation sucks.

[Voyager]

I have. I experienced symptoms of narcolepsy for years and when it finally got to be more than I could handle with massive amounts of caffeine, I went to a doctor about it. When my diagnosis was official I requested specific drugs due to the decreased side effects they had compared to more effective and cheaper drugs. It has worked out quite well.

I bet you figured out that some drugs had fewer side effects than others from research on the net or looking at the PDR, right? I suspect it wasn't from a TV commercial. If more people did it the way you did it, we'd be in better shape.

[Voyager]

And I prefer to be given a pony. I demand a law that gives me one.

Besides, prices are set by supply and demand, not necessarily by advertising costs. If you eliminate advertising and suppress demand, that could easily cause the price to go up, not down. I'll also note that you are incorrect in saying that they spend 25% of the cost of the drug. They spend 25% of their sales dollars. Your study also does not distinguish between prescription drug advertising and non-prescription drugs.

The demand should be independent of advertising in a just world, since advertising doesn't make anyone sick (in that way, at least.) The drug a doctor prescribes should also be independent of TV. Generics don't advertise, so ads for brand names, and doctors who might prescribe them to shut the patient up drive up the cost of medicine.

And of course there is the goal of creating new diseases. You may have heard the radio ads now running for laser treatment of toenail fungus, which affects someone's love life supposedly (I guess if he is going out with a foot fetishist.) Admittedly this is not covered by insurance (I hope) but is a good example.

[Voyager]

Advertising cars drives their cost up. Why do I need Ford to advertise different models of cars when I can just go to the dealership, tell the staff what kind of automotive needs I have and they can tell me what car I should buy.



Do you need an ad to tell you to drive, the way ads tell people they are sick and don't know it? Plus, one car is pretty much like another, unlike medicines. So the two cases aren't even close to being similar.

[pkbites]

one car is pretty much like another

So my Mustang GT is just like my Vitara 4x4?:confused:


BULLSHIT!!!!

I challenge you to prove that in the next snowstorm.


This crap is about class warfare. It pisses you off that some privately funded scientists/chemists discovered some medications for something and dare to want to make a buck (in a free country) for their work, instead of giving it away.

Kumbaya Lord, Kumbaya! Fuck that shit!

[straight man]

Hmm. Guess I learned something. :)

[Sage Rat]

Major pharmaceutical companies are screwed in the US. They develop most of the world's new medicines, but it takes so long to get it to market that the patent doesn't last long enough for them to make their money back. In the rest of the world, medicine is bought wholesale by governments, and the government experts are aware that a knock-off brand is exactly the same as a name brand, so they buy the version that's released by a company which didn't do the R&D -- so they can sale it for production cost only. The only way for the people who invented the drug to make their money back is by marking up the price in the US and advertising it to the general populace.

I'll agree to ban these advertisements, but only if you'll agree to extend the patent period on pharmaceuticals by another 20 years.

[gonzomax]

Most pharmaceuticals are developed in medical schools for free. They make a zillion dollars off of the popular ones and then can make minor changed to extend the patent a lot longer.We rush them through to market because if pharms enormous lobbying pressure. Their greed has harmed and killed Americans.
http://psychcrimereporter.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/pharmaceutical-companies-that-get-convicted-of-crimes-are-still-allowed-to-do-business-with-the-u-s-government-how-does-that-work/

[gonzomax]

http://thyroid.about.com/b/2011/03/03/thyroid-forest-legal.htm I could provide cites of pharm illegal and unethical actions forever. That is how they do business.
http://thyroid.about.com/b/2011/03/03/thyroid-forest-legal.htm

[Shamozzle]

This is the commercial I find hilarious:

Guy walking through the park with his grandkids, all smiling

Then he's doing some woodwork in his garage, still smiling

Then he's ballroom dancing with his wife, all smiles

Then the tagline: "Ask your doctor about 'Happypil'"

Commercial over


It's nuts. What are you supposed to do with that info?

"Yea, so doc. I want to be generally happy and content with my life. What about "Happypil"?

"Well, are you a senior citizen with hypertension, but can't take "ABC Drug" because you also have "XYZ" as a complication?

"Well, no."

"Ok, well, how about I be the doctor, m'kay?"

"Sounds great."

"Good."


It's stupid.

[Sage Rat]

I'll match Gonzo's loony blogs with a government study:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf

That drug companies also have to toy about with patents on quasi-new medications is also a factor of the basic problem. It's the only way they can stay in business.

Note that the PDF doesn't paint the Pharmaceutical industry as a bunch of great and wonderful innovators, it just gives a practical and accurate overview of where things stand and why.

[Acid Lamp]

This is crap on so many levels. By your standard almost every product would be limited to advertising in specific areas instead of general ones.

The public has every right to know what options there are regarding medications, and the pharmaceutical companies have every right to tell the public what those options are.

What the OP is really all about is class warfare. The pharm companies have products that the public wants and needs, and the sonsabitches have the audacity to make a profit selling it instead of giving it away for the greater good.
And they're taking some of that profit to advertise so they can (:eek:GASP!:eek:) make more profit! What the OP wants is a thinly veiled form of communistic fascism.

Bolding mine.

Cite?

Also I'm not entirely certain how you are using it, ( I suspect loosely), but "communistic fascism" seems to be an oxymoron.

[John Mace]

The demand should be independent of advertising in a just world, since advertising doesn't make anyone sick (in that way, at least.) The drug a doctor prescribes should also be independent of TV. Generics don't advertise, so ads for brand names, and doctors who might prescribe them to shut the patient up drive up the cost of medicine.

And of course there is the goal of creating new diseases. You may have heard the radio ads now running for laser treatment of toenail fungus, which affects someone's love life supposedly (I guess if he is going out with a foot fetishist.) Admittedly this is not covered by insurance (I hope) but is a good example.

Get back to me when we live in a "just" world. And why should the drug a doctor gives a patient be "independent of TV"? I'm not sure what that means exactly, but it isn't like TV is inherently evil or anything.

In short, I reject your premises, so your conclusions aren't valid.

But sure, some drug companies try to "invent" new diseases, but so what? All companies try to create some demand for their products that certain people are going to say is unnecessary. But in a free society, we let individuals decide what they need or don't need.

[shiftless]

Those of you who feel like drug companies should be allowed to advertise all they want, how do you feel about the fact that the general public is restricted, by law, in their access to those products? I mean, if we don't need a nanny state then we don't need a nanny state.

I would be happy if the drug companies were at least required to be truthful in their ads. The ad where we see what they want us to believe is a cross section of an artery, with what they want us to think is plates of sticky cholesterol clogging up the works, drives me crazy. It's fear tactics combined with vague misinformation. Their veiled promise that I will get laid more if I use the little blue pill is outright false too.

[Shodan]

Most pharmaceuticals are developed in medical schools for free.Do you have a cite for this?

Regards,
Shodan

[gonzomax]

I'll match Gonzo's loony blogs with a government study:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf

That drug companies also have to toy about with patents on quasi-new medications is also a factor of the basic problem. It's the only way they can stay in business.

Note that the PDF doesn't paint the Pharmaceutical industry as a bunch of great and wonderful innovators, it just gives a practical and accurate overview of where things stand and why.

Only way they can stay in business? They are making billions. they are not on the edge of going under. They are powerful enough to be as corrupt as their imagination will allow.
Disclaimer. Of course don't believe this if you are pregnant, plan on becoming pregnant, know anybody who was pregnant or don't mind going blind.
http://www.beckersasc.com/stark-act-and-fraud-abuse-issues/elan-pharmaceuticals-faces-97m-fine-after-pleading-guilty-to-off-label-marketing-of-epilepsy-drug.html
For pharm this is just business.

[Voyager]

So my Mustang GT is just like my Vitara 4x4?:confused:


BULLSHIT!!!!

I challenge you to prove that in the next snowstorm.

I live in the Bay Area, so that might take quite a while. Even when I lived where there was snow, my cheap old Saturn with traction control and snow tires did just fine.
Now, I'm quite aware that some people think expensive cars are somehow different than cheaper cars, but both get you places. Perhaps you'd pay more for a pill in designer colors?

This crap is about class warfare. It pisses you off that some privately funded scientists/chemists discovered some medications for something and dare to want to make a buck (in a free country) for their work, instead of giving it away.

Kumbaya Lord, Kumbaya! Fuck that shit!
Actually, if they did away with the money they spent on advertising, they might have more for scientists, who in this case contribute a lot more to society than ad men designing scary commercials about toenail fungus. Some ads are useful - just not these. Big Pharma these days seems to have a problem innovating, and get a lot of their new drugs by buying startups. And I have no problems with them being private. NIH is good for funding highly risky research, and they are good in making the results practical.

Now you can wipe the spittle off your chin and stop assuming I believe in things I don't.

[Voyager]

Get back to me when we live in a "just" world. And why should the drug a doctor gives a patient be "independent of TV"? I'm not sure what that means exactly, but it isn't like TV is inherently evil or anything.

In short, I reject your premises, so your conclusions aren't valid.

But sure, some drug companies try to "invent" new diseases, but so what? All companies try to create some demand for their products that certain people are going to say is unnecessary. But in a free society, we let individuals decide what they need or don't need.

You have a problem with making the world just a little bit more just? I'm not against advertising at all. It can inform people, and build demand for some goods which helps the economy. But no one ever benefited from taking a pill they didn't need. Now it is a good thing to advertise about symptoms of diseases to get people to the doctor when they need to go - but those ads are mostly PSAs, since the drug companies only advertise for high profit items.
As for the individual deciding - first, having the individual demand high cost non-generics increases the cost of healthcare, which hurts us all. Second, prescription drugs are all about the individual not being allowed to decide for himself. Third, you have never seemed to me to be the kind of libertarian who wants to abolish the FDA because any old person can read the medical literature and make these decisions for himself. That's another way in which we don't allow people full liberty in making medical decisions.

[John Mace]

Those of you who feel like drug companies should be allowed to advertise all they want, how do you feel about the fact that the general public is restricted, by law, in their access to those products? I mean, if we don't need a nanny state then we don't need a nanny state.
Before we go there, it should be noted that there is a huge difference between the government controlling a substance because it might be dangerous if used incorrectly and the government controlling your access to information about the substance. There is no direct harm to the individual because he has access to advertising information-- he still has to go thru a doctor to get the actual drug.

[Voyager]

Most pharmaceuticals are developed in medical schools for free. They make a zillion dollars off of the popular ones and then can make minor changed to extend the patent a lot longer.We rush them through to market because if pharms enormous lobbying pressure. Their greed has harmed and killed Americans.
http://psychcrimereporter.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/pharmaceutical-companies-that-get-convicted-of-crimes-are-still-allowed-to-do-business-with-the-u-s-government-how-does-that-work/

Not quite true, and I'm on your side. There is a big difference between fundamental research on a drug (not free, paid for by NIH with a good investment of our tax dollars) and running the studies that will make the new drug manufacturable and prove that it is safe.

[even sven]

Major pharmaceutical companies are screwed in the US.

Yeah, they barely make profits at all.

If it's such a sucker's game, why is anyone doing it?

[TriPolar]

While I have no problem with the reasonable regulation of advertising for prescription medications, I agree with John Mace that I have a right to find out on my own what medications are available, and pharmaceutical companies should not be restrained from informing me.

[pkbites]

Those of you who feel like drug companies should be allowed to advertise all they want, how do you feel about the fact that the general public is restricted, by law, in their access to those products?

Some members of the public are restricted from other products that are free to advertise. Should we ban ads for cars and beer? Should the Gander Mountain flyer that comes in the paper be banned because kids can't buy the rifles advertised?

And if the pharm companies want to spend their profits on commercials rather than hire new chemists, that's their business, not anyone elses.

[The Universe Lashes Out]

Before we go there, it should be noted that there is a huge difference between the government controlling a substance because it might be dangerous if used incorrectly and the government controlling your access to information about the substance. There is no direct harm to the individual because he has access to advertising information-- he still has to go thru a doctor to get the actual drug.

I don't know why you think that advertising a prescription drug counts as "information" in any meaningful way. When a government bans that type of advertising, they are not restricting anyone's access to information about drugs. They are restricting propaganda designed to make people think they need a drug.

[shiftless]

Before we go there, it should be noted that there is a huge difference between the government controlling a substance because it might be dangerous if used incorrectly and the government controlling your access to information about the substance. There is no direct harm to the individual because he has access to advertising information-- he still has to go thru a doctor to get the actual drug.

I don't think anyone is talking about the government controlling information. We are talking about whether the government should have a hand in the misinformation, or, to be charitable, one-sided information, that the drug companies present. The exact same government that controls public access to those drugs. I don't see how you reconcile the ideas that we are both incompetent to choose our own drugs and yet fully competent to recommend drugs based on what we see on TV. Does anyone here really believe that the ads are only meant to call doctors' attention to a useful drug they happened to overlook?

[John Mace]

I don't know why you think that advertising a prescription drug counts as "information" in any meaningful way. When a government bans that type of advertising, they are not restricting anyone's access to information about drugs. They are restricting propaganda designed to make people think they need a drug.
These types of ads are regulated as to content. If they are making false claims, then take these guys to court and have the ads removed.

If it's your contention that there is no useful information these ads, then I'll need to see some evidence of that.

[Annie-Xmas]

First of all, pharmaceutical "drugs" are never advertised. The word DRUG is never used in any commercial ever. It's always "medicine." I've had doctors tell me "That's not a drug, it's medicine."

[Blaster Master]

There's a lot of problems with this situation, but I don't think that the solution to the problem is a ban or restriction on advertising. The pharmaceutical companies need to shape up some, but so do the patients and the doctors.

As a patient, I have a duty to myself to be informed about my medical condition. If I have a particular condition, I should occassionally read up on recent studies about it, and see what treatment options there are out there. Obviously, self-diagnosis is dangerous, but learning a little bit about stuff so that I can ask someone who is qualified to make those sorts of decisions. The harm isn't with the information, its what we do with the information. Going in and double checking that my doctor has heard about it and weighed it as a treatment option is reasonable; going in and demanding the pill is dumb and should be shot down.

Doctors need to stay up to date, but expecting them to stay up to date on every medication for every condition is ridiculous. Perhaps a he subscribes to journals A, B, C, and D, but the new study for a condition I have was published in journal E. Is he irrepsonsible for not knowing about it, particularly if it's relatively recent? What if it is in a journal to which he subscribes, but he didn't exactly scour the article with a particular patient in mind. Is he irresponsible for not immediately thinking that new treatment X is perfect of me? The whole idea would be that the patient says "hey doctor, I heard about this new treatment for my condition, what do you think?" And he can either provide an immediately informed response, because he knows, or maybe he hadn't heard about it or hadn't researched it yet, and he can read up on it, and then make an informed decision. The other problem is, of course, doctors getting freebies and kickbacks for subscribing, but that's more of an ethics thing, and when you hear about it, you should never see that doctor again.

For pharmaceuiticals, putting out ads for new medicines makes sense. There's plenty of stuff I see advertised on television that obviously isn't something the general public is going to be interested in. Their goal, however, should be product awareness, as in, there's a need drug that can be used to treat certain conditions; ask your doctor about it. If I'm too stupid to do a little research on it first, it's my fault. If my doctor is a moron and just gives it to me because I asked for it, or because he gets a kickback, he's a bad doctor.

What really pisses me off though are the ads that try to convince me I have a condition, describing symptoms and then telling me about a magic pill. Or showing a generic commercial that doesn't really tell me what a pill is supposed to be for, but tells me about how awesome it is. The thing is, if it's something that's serious enough that I need to be on regular medication for it, I've probably already been to the doctor for it and I don't need you to convince me to do so. I do think these types are particularly unethical, but I'm not really sure what can or should be done about them without affecting the types that I think are legitimate.


Either way, it's just information, and I don't want the government restricting my access to it, even though I have zero personal interest in any of the medications I see advertised on TV.

[BigT]

You guys are making a fallacious argument. Drug prices are not high to subsidize advertizing. They are high because people will pay that much.

And I would argue that advertising is a right. It's freedom of the press. If a media company wants to run an ad, they can. There are some cases in which the right is restricted, but I cannot think of one that would apply to prescription drugs.

Combine that with the fact that it's not going to lower prices, and I don't see the point in outlawing it.

ETA: Heck, decreasing the number of users may make prices go up, as often happens when demand decreases.

[Voyager]

ETA: Heck, decreasing the number of users may make prices go up, as often happens when demand decreases.

Only in monopoly situations. If the water company sees demand decreasing because of conservation, it raises the price. If a computer maker sees demand decreasing, do you think they raise the price in response?

Do you agree or disagree that it was a good idea to ban cigarette ads on TV. I saw a bunch as a kid, and I have a DVD with lots of them. They stopped making health claims sometime during the '50s, but still made lifestyle claims, just as the drug companies do today.

[Voyager]

While I have no problem with the reasonable regulation of advertising for prescription medications, I agree with John Mace that I have a right to find out on my own what medications are available, and pharmaceutical companies should not be restrained from informing me.

The only thing restricted would be one minute commercials, half of which consists of someone reading out a list of side effects while a couple romps on the beach. No one would restrict sponsored search results, say.

I wonder how many people are scared off investigating a drug which could actually help by the side effect list. If I were a drug company, I'd almost prefer directing my potential customers to a web site where the side effect listing is put into the proper context.

[salinqmind]

That's all well and good, but they should also stop the "hot" pharm saleswomen from waltzing into my doctor's office and whoring their wares while I'm waiting for my appointment, as well.

Oh, I had one, observing, in the exam room. (The doctor did ask if I minded, and as the exam was for a sore throat and not a pelvic, I said, sure, she can stay if she isn't afraid of possibly catching a strep infection.) And I've heard a rumour from people I know who sell medical equipment, of being invited in to watch an operation! Whether it was in the viewing section or actually in the OR is unclear.

Also, I read that one of the things that most ticks off a doctor is being handed a sheaf of papers copied off the internet by a patient. I would imagine this includes information about the latest pill. The crabby harrassed PHP drone I see would hardly appreciate it, much less take the time to read the information before rendering a decision.

[TriPolar]

The only thing restricted would be one minute commercials, half of which consists of someone reading out a list of side effects while a couple romps on the beach. No one would restrict sponsored search results, say.

I wonder how many people are scared off investigating a drug which could actually help by the side effect list. If I were a drug company, I'd almost prefer directing my potential customers to a web site where the side effect listing is put into the proper context.

Well people are going to differ over what 'reasonable regulation' should be. I don't find the commercials all that bad, or any different from a sponsored search result. Reading the list of side effects in the commercial is stupid though. It certainly keeps me from considering any of the medications, now when I don't need them. But a recent illness had me paying more attention to the name of the med, and less to the side effects.

Overall, I'd prefer to know what's available, and limit the restrictions. These are medications that require a doctor's approval to obtain. There's no guarantee a doctor will discuss any particular medication with a patient, so the patient needs to know what is available. I wouldn't mind more restrictions on the content. Personally, I could live without the phony testemonials and actor/patient/doctors.

[Shmendrik]

Most pharmaceuticals are developed in medical schools for free. They make a zillion dollars off of the popular ones and then can make minor changed to extend the patent a lot longer.We rush them through to market because if pharms enormous lobbying pressure. Their greed has harmed and killed Americans.
http://psychcrimereporter.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/pharmaceutical-companies-that-get-convicted-of-crimes-are-still-allowed-to-do-business-with-the-u-s-government-how-does-that-work/

Ah yes, for free.

[Kozmik]

This is the commercial I find hilarious:

Guy walking through the park with his grandkids, all smiling

Then he's doing some woodwork in his garage, still smiling

Then he's ballroom dancing with his wife, all smiles

Then the tagline: "Ask your doctor about 'Happypil'"

Commercial over


It's nuts. What are you supposed to do with that info?

"Yea, so doc. I want to be generally happy and content with my life. What about "Happypil"?

"Well, are you a senior citizen with hypertension, but can't take "ABC Drug" because you also have "XYZ" as a complication?

"Well, no."

"Ok, well, how about I be the doctor, m'kay?"

"Sounds great."

"Good."


It's stupid.It's ridiciously stupid. It would make for a good SNL skit. Ask Your Doctor If Prozoft Is Right For You (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLef9G1PJ7s&playnext=1&list=PLCD196312B2D9D0AE).



These types of commercials weren't allowed in the U.S. until 1997. Of course, advertising and spending have both skyrocketed in that time.In 1997, $700 million dollars was spent on drug commercials. In 2004, $4 billion dollars was spent on drug commercials. According to the link, that's more than the R&D of new drugs.

[Stink Fish Pot]

And I prefer that the (already exorbitantly expensive) cost of prescription drugs isn't unneccesarily increased to pay for the cost of advertisements (which is estimated to be about a quarter of the overall cost of the drugs (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm)).


Bad news, Blalron. The meds would most likely cost the same. After all, there isn't any oversight to tell Big Pharma what they can charge for a drug. But it does sound good that they can put the cost of advertising in their pricing model to show us that big pharma isn't really price gouging anyone.

See, this boils down to..... yeah, you guessed it. Money. What a surprise.

As to the OP, in theory, I agree with the concept, but I have to say, I do like hearing the side-effects of any medication that seems to fit any condition I might be suffering from. I especially like the ones that say that "this medication can even cause death in some rare instances." "Well, I guess they told us, so if I take it and die, I can't sue!" Of course, I'll be dead, so I can't sue anyway, but it sure is nice to know.

[Stink Fish Pot]

Big Pharma these days seems to have a problem innovating, and get a lot of their new drugs by buying startups. And I have no problems with them being private. NIH is good for funding highly risky research, and they are good in making the results practical.



Some of the things written in this thread are so flat out wrong, it amazes me. I wonder how many actually know what they are talking about, vs doing a quick search on google, vs pulling things from the lower bowel region.

Big Pharma isn't having a problem innovating. They have different goals than you think they should have. Big pharma tends to focus their time, energy, money, and other resources on the blockbuster drugs. The ones that will make them countless billions before the patent runs out. As someone mentioned before, if their pipeline is weak, they will buy smaller companies out that have some good products in their product pipeline, but the big pharma researchers in the white lab coats are getting the big bonuses and big salaries to develop medications that will be home runs, not singles.

[gonzomax]

http://io9.com/#!5505159/judge-to-big-pharma-you-cant-patent-genes
I have no use for Pharma. They do not care if you live or die. They want your money.

[Sage Rat]

http://io9.com/#!5505159/judge-to-big-pharma-you-cant-patent-genes
I have no use for Pharma. They do not care if you live or die. They want your money.

Yes, that's why they went to school and learned how to save lives and then went and spent decades hunched over microscopes and beakers: Just to rob you of your money.

Who wouldn't!

[Fear Itself]

Yes, that's why they went to school and learned how to save lives and then went and spent decades hunched over microscopes and beakers...The people making the management decisions at big pharma did none of those things. They are all lawyers and accountants. Scientists are just useful drones.

[Sage Rat]

The people making the management decisions at big pharma did none of those things. They are all lawyers and accountants.
And? Even supposing that that's true, you're saying that lawyers and accountants are particularly looking forward to forcing people to destroy their lives?

[Fear Itself]

And? Even supposing that that's true, you're saying that lawyers and accountants are particularly looking forward to forcing people to destroy their lives?I am saying lawyers and accountants seek to maximize return on investment to the exclusion of all else, including saving peoples lives.

[clairobscur]

Do you need an ad to tell you to drive, the way ads tell people they are sick and don't know it?.

Well, over here ads for prescription drugs are banned (ads for homeopathy and such aren't, so if you see an add for a specific "drug", you can be sure it's crap).

However, from time to time, an ad runs describing a medical condition and pointing at its seriousness (last I saw was a campaign for a serious eye condition describing its early symptoms), ending with something along the line "consult your doctor". You can be pretty it means that some new drug entered the market and that the producer hopes you'll be prescribed this drug (which isn't named in the commercial).

This does may attract the attention of people who are indeed sick but didn't really paid attention to the symptoms, and I don't have much of an issue with that.


Otherwise, I think I wouldn't mind ads for drugs on TV, providing that a complete list of the possible side effects appears in the ad, read slowly enough so that everybody can clearly understand ;)

[Shodan]

http://io9.com/#!5505159/judge-to-big-pharma-you-cant-patent-genes
I have no use for Pharma. They do not care if you live or die. They want your money.Still waiting for a cite for this -
Most pharmaceuticals are developed in medical schools for free.
Regards,
Shodan

[Voyager]

Well people are going to differ over what 'reasonable regulation' should be. I don't find the commercials all that bad, or any different from a sponsored search result. Reading the list of side effects in the commercial is stupid though. It certainly keeps me from considering any of the medications, now when I don't need them. But a recent illness had me paying more attention to the name of the med, and less to the side effects.

Overall, I'd prefer to know what's available, and limit the restrictions. These are medications that require a doctor's approval to obtain. There's no guarantee a doctor will discuss any particular medication with a patient, so the patient needs to know what is available. I wouldn't mind more restrictions on the content. Personally, I could live without the phony testemonials and actor/patient/doctors.

If you depend on TV, you'd only get information from those companies who chose to advertise on the programs you watch. By that criteria, Enzyte was the number one drug in America. :) Sponsored links appear in the context of other links, and so I'm fine with them.
Going to your doctor armed with the results of research is a good thing. Going to your doctor armed only with what you saw on TV is not necessarily a good thing.

[Voyager]

Some of the things written in this thread are so flat out wrong, it amazes me. I wonder how many actually know what they are talking about, vs doing a quick search on google, vs pulling things from the lower bowel region.

Big Pharma isn't having a problem innovating. They have different goals than you think they should have. Big pharma tends to focus their time, energy, money, and other resources on the blockbuster drugs. The ones that will make them countless billions before the patent runs out. As someone mentioned before, if their pipeline is weak, they will buy smaller companies out that have some good products in their product pipeline, but the big pharma researchers in the white lab coats are getting the big bonuses and big salaries to develop medications that will be home runs, not singles.

There have been many, many stories in the Times about the lack of innovation in Big Pharma. I used to live in Central Jersey, right around a lot of research centers, and knew quite a few scientists who worked there, and my wife worked in a small way on a blockbuster drug, Tagamet. I don't do drug research but I do other kinds of research, and despite my low opinion of these guys I doubt they are stupid enough to be going for a few home runs. There is a problem about researching drugs with an inherently small (though important) market. But why would anyone fund a start-up to work on small drugs without a lot of profit potential?

[Voyager]

However, from time to time, an ad runs describing a medical condition and pointing at its seriousness (last I saw was a campaign for a serious eye condition describing its early symptoms), ending with something along the line "consult your doctor". You can be pretty it means that some new drug entered the market and that the producer hopes you'll be prescribed this drug (which isn't named in the commercial).

This does may attract the attention of people who are indeed sick but didn't really paid attention to the symptoms, and I don't have much of an issue with that.

We have PSAs which do that now, sometimes, and if drug companies wanted to run these to flush out people with a condition who might not know it, I'd be right behind them. They can even put their name and logo on the ad to build up good will.
Especially in the US with our poor health insurance we might want to encourage people to go to the doctor before something horrendous happens.

[CalMeacham]

But...but...if you outlaw advertising, I won't see any more of those ads with the CGI Pipe People enthusing about their bladders, or falling-apart houses and double bathtubs for the erectile dysfunction people.



And I love hearing the lists of possible side-effects ("May cause lycanthropy in some users") -- it's a hypochondriac's dream.

[Pleonast]

On the rare occasions that I watch TV anymore, I always get annoyed at commercials for prescription only drugs. "Ask your doctor if the Purple Pill is right for you!"

No! Tell your doctor your symptoms, then he will tell you what's right for you! There's a very strong possibility that the "purple pill" isn't right for you, and the doctor will have to waste both your time and his time explaining to you why he's not going to prescribe it. This drives up medical costs for everyone, as do the billions of the dollars spent on these advertisements.

Other countries ban these types of commercials. So should the United States.
What's with all the pro-censorship threads these days? The solution to speech you don't like is more speech, not censorship.

[Voyager]

And I love hearing the lists of possible side-effects ("May cause lycanthropy in some users") -- it's a hypochondriac's dream.

Colbert's list of side effects in his "Cheating Death" bit should fill that gap quite nicely.

[Shodan]

What's with all the pro-censorship threads these days? The solution to speech you don't like is more speech, not censorship.Some people still suffer from the insane delusion that adults are responsible for their own decisions. Obviously we can't have that.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bryan Ekers]

So what's the harm. Is a ten second question gonna hurt?

Why do you hate America's effort to rein in skyrocketing medical costs?


The OP's proposal is nanny-state nonsense. There is nothing magical about a doctor's knowledge that I have to blindly trust it, nor is it reasonable to expect a doctor, any doctor, to be fully versed in all the latest advances in pharmocology. I'm perfectly capable of doing layman research with the tools at my disposal and if I have a health problem that an advertised drug seems to address, I see no harm in looking into it, and then bringing up a few relevant questions at my medical appointment.

Basically, fuck that idea that I, as a smart person, must be denied information because of someone's fears of what some hypothetical stupid person might do with it. Fuck the idea sideways. It's elitist bullshit that has not even established that the problem it claims to address even exists and deserves all the scorn it can get.

[Bryan Ekers]

Colbert's list of side effects in his "Cheating Death" bit should fill that gap quite nicely.

Those always kill me. "...may cause Restless Ear Syndrome, Stretch Armstrong Marks, and Parallel Parkinson's Disease."

[Skald the Rhymer]

Purely out of curiosity, has anybody here ever gone to their doctor and requested a specific product? It would never occur to me to do such a thing, personally.

In a sense. I recently went back on oral meds for my diabetes. By coincidence I was also starting with a new doctor at the same time (my former gp has gone to the choir invisible), so when we were discussing my symptoms, I specifically requested a scrip for the same drug I was one before.

[Stink Fish Pot]

There have been many, many stories in the Times about the lack of innovation in Big Pharma. I used to live in Central Jersey, right around a lot of research centers, and knew quite a few scientists who worked there, and my wife worked in a small way on a blockbuster drug, Tagamet. I don't do drug research but I do other kinds of research, and despite my low opinion of these guys I doubt they are stupid enough to be going for a few home runs. There is a problem about researching drugs with an inherently small (though important) market. But why would anyone fund a start-up to work on small drugs without a lot of profit potential?

Living in central NJ around pharma research facilities is a lot different than working for a large pharma. So unless you worked for a large Pharma, (which you don't imply), you can't speak with certainty about what they are doing internally.

Many if not all of the small, start-ups that are funded by VC have as part of their business plan to be bought out. And this often happens. So if Big Pharma X has a weak pipeline, they might buy up small research A to increase their potential offerings and excite the investors on Wall Street.

Now what you say is partially true. It DOES sound foolhardy to chase after home run, block buster drugs only, but those are the only ones that a) bring the kind of revenue that excites Wall Street and jacks up their bonuses, and b) puts them on the research map. A good scientist who comes up with one great drug can write his/her ticket to go just about anywhere in the industry. And they often do. They also often fail, but that doesn't stop someone else from hiring them in the hopes of getting that "next big drug". Pharma companies are much like cash rich baseball teams. The guy they are after hasn't had a breakthrough in years, but this year could be different. He might still have it, and with the right facilities and the right people, he could create the next blockbuster drug that will double our profits for the next 5 years. If not, a good contingency plan is to keep an eye on the smaller research shops and see if they have anything in stage 3 development that would be worth buying the company for. Or at the very least, we can enter into a marketing agreement with them.

If a smaller drug happens to be discovered at a large pharma, it's usually by accident. The drug may not be on the radar screen of R&D, but the molecule happens to treat symptoms associated with another condition. So, they will pursue that drug.

[TriPolar]

Colbert's list of side effects in his "Cheating Death" bit should fill that gap quite nicely.

You really seem to dislike pharmaceutical companies. But they're really no more scummy or greedy than oil companies, insurance companies, credit card companies, investment bankers, lawyers, politicians...

[bengangmo]

My understanding is that the problem of "over medication" is also quite significant in America. When you have people being able to (to a large extent) "choose" the specific brand of medication for a problem TV advertising just ads to this.

What's more, when "insurance" picks up the cost, but the consumer chooses, there is no incentive to minimise costs.

If you don't think that TV advertising, for the average consumer, is going to add to this problem you are stark raving insane.

[asterion]

Most pharmaceuticals are developed in medical schools for free. They make a zillion dollars off of the popular ones and then can make minor changed to extend the patent a lot longer.We rush them through to market because if pharms enormous lobbying pressure. Their greed has harmed and killed Americans.
http://psychcrimereporter.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/pharmaceutical-companies-that-get-convicted-of-crimes-are-still-allowed-to-do-business-with-the-u-s-government-how-does-that-work/

Gonzo, I can't think of a single pharmaceutical that went from lead to final FDA approval in a medical school because it doesn't happen. What you see is a researcher in a university somewhere comes up with a compound or even a class of compounds that is shown to do something in rats. The university PR department then writes a press release about how this latest breakthrough may cure cancer or something like that.

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/02/14/new_cures_faster_faster.php
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/07/the_costs_of_drug_research_beginning_a_rebuttal.php

So you've found your initial lead compound. The first thing that happens is that a number of derivatives are synthesized on small scale and are screened. Computer modeling is used to get an idea of how the molecule should dock into the receptor. The crucial parts of the molecule are investigated to see what is needed and what can be stripped out or substituted. So now you've found your target compound. You've managed to make it one way or another (medicinal chemistry syntheses tend to be massively unsuitable for large-scale synthesis) in large enough amounts to push forward. The target then goes to the development chemists, who have to take the synthetic route provided and either scale it up or find alternative routes to the compound. Once the route is developed and proven on a reasonable scale (say between 100 g and 1 kg) more testing is done. Eventually the compound is synthesized under GMP conditions, often about the same size as the demonstration batch that was made by the development chemists. Eventually the synthesis has to go to a pilot plant, where additional problems normally have to be solved and then eventually into a production plant.

So you've managed to get your synthesis nailed down, you've made all the material needed to keep the FDA happy that you have control over what you're doing, and you're ready to start selling to the general public, right? Wrong. In most cases, you can't just dissolve up the drug and inject it right into the bloodstream. If nothing else, people will hate it and compliance will be low. So you need to spend time figuring out how to formulate the drug into a pill or other delivery mechanism. This brings up all sorts of other issues, most of which I'm not qualified to talk about because I've never done any formulation work. But one potential problem that often crops up is that of polymorphs, or different crystal structures of the same compound. One polymorph may dissolve beautifully, another may be like a rock. Ideally the development chemists have already known about this and have managed to get polymorphs under control long before you're actually worried about formulation.

During this whole time, of course, investigations have been going on in the biology side. I'm even less qualified to talk about that, but any number of targets have failed at the pre-clinical level. Others fail in clinical testing. All those tests cost money, lots of money. Filing applications with the FDA costs money. You can't do synthesis without analytical support, so you need analytical equipment for the synthetic chemists and actual analytical chemists to develop analytical methods for use. Equipment costs money. Chemists cost money. Chemicals cost money, though on larger scales the price per gram or kilogram drops and one of the things development chemists try to do is to lower the cost of the synthesis. And of course all of this takes time.

Pharma may not be on the side of the angels, and as a chemist I have few reasons to love them right now. But these things really do cost money, and you can either have the system set up as it is right now or we could look into making the NIH (or an offshoot) into a federal government pharmaceutical company.

[Pleonast]

My understanding is that the problem of "over medication" is also quite significant in America. When you have people being able to (to a large extent) "choose" the specific brand of medication for a problem TV advertising just ads to this.

What's more, when "insurance" picks up the cost, but the consumer chooses, there is no incentive to minimise costs.

If you don't think that TV advertising, for the average consumer, is going to add to this problem you are stark raving insane.
No one is saying it's not a problem. What we are saying is that censorship is not the solution you're looking for.

[Bryan Ekers]

What about droids?

[Jackmannii]

Basically, fuck that idea that I, as a smart person, must be denied information because of someone's fears of what some hypothetical stupid person might do with it.You would not be "denied" the information by ad limitations, any more than a smoker is "denied" information about the wonders of tobacco products due to the ban on broadcast cigarette ads.

For instance, I hear there's this new-fangled thing called the Internet where one can look up all sorts of stuff.

[Voyager]

Why do you hate America's effort to rein in skyrocketing medical costs?


The OP's proposal is nanny-state nonsense. There is nothing magical about a doctor's knowledge that I have to blindly trust it, nor is it reasonable to expect a doctor, any doctor, to be fully versed in all the latest advances in pharmocology. I'm perfectly capable of doing layman research with the tools at my disposal and if I have a health problem that an advertised drug seems to address, I see no harm in looking into it, and then bringing up a few relevant questions at my medical appointment.

Basically, fuck that idea that I, as a smart person, must be denied information because of someone's fears of what some hypothetical stupid person might do with it. Fuck the idea sideways. It's elitist bullshit that has not even established that the problem it claims to address even exists and deserves all the scorn it can get.

Exactly what information TV ads would give you that you would not get in more detail from your research? What about those people who are too stupid or too clueless to do this kind of research, or to be able to evaluate the results even if they did? You know, the creationists, the Birthers, other similar rocket scientists.

[Pleonast]

You would not be "denied" the information by ad limitations, any more than a smoker is "denied" information about the wonders of tobacco products due to the ban on broadcast cigarette ads.
The ban on smoking adverts shows how the slippery slope of censorship works. First, the government decides something is bad for people. It doesn't matter if it really is or is not, but the fact that the government made the decision. So then the government decides that speech about that something is prohibited, making it harder for people to give their opinions and to get information for their decisions. The message is "trust the government to decide what's best for you--don't talk among yourselves".

And now that we have established that the government can restrict information about one thing for the "public good", maybe they should start restricting about other things for the "public good". After all, the government can make a better decision than the people. So the government starts deciding what's good and bad and makes it harder for people to speak and listen to others. And then we're sliding down the slope to the government choosing what's best and preventing further debate on many things. Maybe things you want to speak about.
Exactly what information TV ads would give you that you would not get in more detail from your research? What about those people who are too stupid or too clueless to do this kind of research, or to be able to evaluate the results even if they did? You know, the creationists, the Birthers, other similar rocket scientists.
Why do you pick out one medium to censor? Especially the one with the "public airwaves"--public venues should be the most protected.

If you want to change the minds of people, speak to change their minds--that is the way of a free society. Don't use state power to censor your opposition--that is the way of an oppressive society.

[Voyager]

Living in central NJ around pharma research facilities is a lot different than working for a large pharma. So unless you worked for a large Pharma, (which you don't imply), you can't speak with certainty about what they are doing internally.

Many if not all of the small, start-ups that are funded by VC have as part of their business plan to be bought out. And this often happens. So if Big Pharma X has a weak pipeline, they might buy up small research A to increase their potential offerings and excite the investors on Wall Street.

I do work in Silicon Valley, in computer design, and I'm quite familiar with this model. But whether the VCs get their money from a buyout (which is the standard model for the EDA industry) or an IPO, they still need to be working on high return items. So my point remains. Not all buyouts make you rich - a guy who worked for me left to start a company, and they got bought out, and he is still working.

Now what you say is partially true. It DOES sound foolhardy to chase after home run, block buster drugs only, but those are the only ones that a) bring the kind of revenue that excites Wall Street and jacks up their bonuses, and b) puts them on the research map. A good scientist who comes up with one great drug can write his/her ticket to go just about anywhere in the industry. And they often do. They also often fail, but that doesn't stop someone else from hiring them in the hopes of getting that "next big drug". Pharma companies are much like cash rich baseball teams. The guy they are after hasn't had a breakthrough in years, but this year could be different. He might still have it, and with the right facilities and the right people, he could create the next blockbuster drug that will double our profits for the next 5 years. If not, a good contingency plan is to keep an eye on the smaller research shops and see if they have anything in stage 3 development that would be worth buying the company for. Or at the very least, we can enter into a marketing agreement with them.

If a smaller drug happens to be discovered at a large pharma, it's usually by accident. The drug may not be on the radar screen of R&D, but the molecule happens to treat symptoms associated with another condition. So, they will pursue that drug.
No, I said it was foolhardy to only go for home runs. A research portfolio will include them. Any funding decision involves expected return on investment over time and risk. You plot your portfolio on a risk versus return graph, throw away anything in the high risk, low return quadrant, pray you have something in the low risk, high return quadrant (not likely) and balance things in the rest.
I like home runs - the first year I followed baseball I was behind the 1961 Yankees, but anyone depending on home runs only is going to fail. You may push the exciting research out to the analysts, but your bottom line is going to look really bad if you hit a dry spell and strike out a lot. It is possible that you are right and Big Pharma is going after home runs only, since I make it a point to never underestimate the stupidity of a CEO, but if so, that is why their stock price tanks when the FDA rejects the latest drug. I hope, and even think, that they are smarter than this.
And, BTW, if you buy companies only after the succeed you are going to be paying more, especially of you are in an auction. Thaler calls this winner's remorse.

[Voyager]

You really seem to dislike pharmaceutical companies. But they're really no more scummy or greedy than oil companies, insurance companies, credit card companies, investment bankers, lawyers, politicians...

It was a joke, son.
And I don't hate them. Tagamet bought us our first house.

[Bryan Ekers]

You would not be "denied" the information by ad limitations, any more than a smoker is "denied" information about the wonders of tobacco products due to the ban on broadcast cigarette ads.

For instance, I hear there's this new-fangled thing called the Internet where one can look up all sorts of stuff.

Why should television, a useful and established medium, be closed to such ads? And the medications (ideally) are unlike tobacco in that they actually help.

Exactly what information TV ads would give you that you would not get in more detail from your research? What about those people who are too stupid or too clueless to do this kind of research, or to be able to evaluate the results even if they did? You know, the creationists, the Birthers, other similar rocket scientists.

Then their doctor can tell 'em to shut their stupid traps.

[gonzomax]

http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0208/0208.lobbying.html Why we can not win. The health care companies spend over 200 million dollars a year on lobbying senators and congressmen. They have power and influence beyond anything we could imagine unless you are a Supreme Court judge, then you love it.

[Voyager]

The ban on smoking adverts shows how the slippery slope of censorship works. First, the government decides something is bad for people. It doesn't matter if it really is or is not, but the fact that the government made the decision. So then the government decides that speech about that something is prohibited, making it harder for people to give their opinions and to get information for their decisions. The message is "trust the government to decide what's best for you--don't talk among yourselves".

The result of the evil,government banning smoking ads on TV is that millions of lives have been saved due in part to this, and to bans on smoking in the workplace and in public places. Smoking ads were and still are allowed in magazines, but clearly the impact is not the same. Ads in the early '50s had athletes pushing ciggies, and singers claiming that smoking actually helped their throats!
And it seems you would much rather trust the tobacco companies and their researcher whores than the government. Guess what - the government was 100% right about this.

And now that we have established that the government can restrict information about one thing for the "public good", maybe they should start restricting about other things for the "public good". After all, the government can make a better decision than the people. So the government starts deciding what's good and bad and makes it harder for people to speak and listen to others. And then we're sliding down the slope to the government choosing what's best and preventing further debate on many things. Maybe things you want to speak about.

Like prohibiting the sale of drugs for serious diseases which are either harmful or which do nothing to fight the diseases perhaps? Ones where the sellers will snooker people into taking it as their problem gets worse, worse to the point where it might be too late for real therapies to work? I'm sure the mortality rate would soar with this kind of government control. :rolleyes:

Why do you pick out one medium to censor? Especially the one with the "public airwaves"--public venues should be the most protected.

If you want to change the minds of people, speak to change their minds--that is the way of a free society. Don't use state power to censor your opposition--that is the way of an oppressive society.
See above for an example of the difference between TV and other media. Web searches, even magazine ads, allow more information to be displayed, and web searches especially give you a range of responses.
And why do you speak of "opposition?" It is not like drug A is censoring drug B. It is not like the government has a financial stake in who wins. The opposing forces here are those who are bound by responsibility to their stockholders to push for increased sales as hard as they can, and those who are more bound to responsibility to patients and the public at large. And, before you call me a Commie, I have no problem with the capitalist model, because for the most part it gives the best results. But in some cases short term profit trumps long term security or the health of the population at large, and that is where government needs to step in. The mortgage crisis is the best example of this I can think of.

[Voyager]

Then their doctor can tell 'em to shut their stupid traps.
Or writes it anyway because the insurance company will pay, or because he doesn't have time to educate this clown, or because he knows the clown will leave and go to a quack who will write it. You don't have to be Michael Jackson to get a doctor who is free with the pad.

[gonzomax]

http://www.citizen.org/hrg1759 The FDA is a weak organization controlled by the pharm companies . They will allow drugs that are weakly tested and suspect. Why? Because of the political power of Pharm.
People die and suffer from these drugs and many more like them.
If people actually ask a doctor to prescribe a drug because they saw it advertised on TV, it is risky. Sometimes the doc does it. It is easier and quicker than explaining all the ramifications. In some cases doctors are getting paid by the pharm company to push the drug. They are encouraged to use the drug in treatments that it has questionable value or none at all.

[Pleonast]

The result of the evil,government banning smoking ads on TV is that millions of lives have been saved due in part to this, and to bans on smoking in the workplace and in public places. Smoking ads were and still are allowed in magazines, but clearly the impact is not the same. Ads in the early '50s had athletes pushing ciggies, and singers claiming that smoking actually helped their throats!
What do bans on public smoking have to do with banning ads?
And it seems you would much rather trust the tobacco companies and their researcher whores than the government. Guess what - the government was 100% right about this.
You seem to be conflating support for free speech with support for a particular viewpoint. I do not trust anything tobacco companies (or pharm companies) say about their products. Yet I believe they have the right to speak their views.
Like prohibiting the sale of drugs for serious diseases which are either harmful or which do nothing to fight the diseases perhaps? Ones where the sellers will snooker people into taking it as their problem gets worse, worse to the point where it might be too late for real therapies to work? I'm sure the mortality rate would soar with this kind of government control. :rolleyes:
There are already laws against fraud.
See above for an example of the difference between TV and other media. Web searches, even magazine ads, allow more information to be displayed, and web searches especially give you a range of responses.
So, because tv cannot have as much info as other media, we should reduce even more the amount of info it can have?
And why do you speak of "opposition?" It is not like drug A is censoring drug B. It is not like the government has a financial stake in who wins. The opposing forces here are those who are bound by responsibility to their stockholders to push for increased sales as hard as they can, and those who are more bound to responsibility to patients and the public at large.
You answered your own question. Why should only one side be able to speak? Let every side speak and let the public have access to every side.
And, before you call me a Commie, I have no problem with the capitalist model, because for the most part it gives the best results. But in some cases short term profit trumps long term security or the health of the population at large, and that is where government needs to step in. The mortgage crisis is the best example of this I can think of.
I have no problem with the government acting to solve a problem. My problem is with the solution of censorship.

[Jackmannii]

Why should television, a useful and established medium, be closed to such ads?What gets passed over here is that we're talking about a product that cannot legally be sold directly to the public. Physicians who are patients cannot (or should not) themselves go out and buy them without a prescription.

Cries of "elitism" are often heard from people (generally of a conservative/libertarian bent) who get upset with the FDA for restricting supplement marketing and sales (at least in theory) because of known hazards and/or lack of proof of safety and efficacy. Why should the "theoretical" existence of "stupid people" prevent them from buying whatever they want, since they're smart enough not to get hurt? And why have an FDA at all? Shouldn't the marketplace be sufficient to decide what drugs succeed or fail? Leave it to the doctor and patient, they say.

Since government is involved in providing health care, it makes sense that it may exercise its regulatory powers over marketing and sale of drugs. There seems to be ample precedent regarding pharmaceutical ads - though it's doubtful anything will happen given drug companies political clout (though nothing like in gonzo's fevered fantasies) and potential legal issues.

[Bryan Ekers]

What gets passed over here is that we're talking about a product that cannot legally be sold directly to the public. Physicians who are patients cannot (or should not) themselves go out and buy them without a prescription.

So? As I said, there's nothing magical about a medical degree that means one has complete knowledge of pharmacology and need never suffer some insignificant layman and their pathetic requests for more information. Heaven forbid a doctor was his precious time answer patient questions, time that could me more productively spent filling out insurance forms.

[Voyager]

What do bans on public smoking have to do with banning ads?

I was being accurate. I doubt I could support the claim that the ban on TV ads by itself led to the decline in smoking. The ban on smoking in public places I'm sure had a lot to do with it. I don't want to oversell the benefits. Yet, the TV ban predated the other ban.

You seem to be conflating support for free speech with support for a particular viewpoint. I do not trust anything tobacco companies (or pharm companies) say about their products. Yet I believe they have the right to speak their views.

There always have been limits on commercial speech. The TV ads were not their views, they were presented as fact. And of course TV ads do not work ad dispassionate displays of information.

There are already laws against fraud.

IANAL, but I suspect that someone selling a medicine and making claims that he has never gone to the trouble to test is not committing fraud. Any idiot can design an ad which is not fraudulent but is still misleading. We require a stronger metric in the US to sell prescription drugs than that we don't know for sure if it will kill you or not.

So, because tv cannot have as much info as other media, we should reduce even more the amount of info it can have?

The amount of information on TV is constant. However, you can only cram so much information into a one minute or even two minute spot. This is nowhere close to the amount of information you can put onto a website.

You answered your own question. Why should only one side be able to speak? Let every side speak and let the public have access to every side.

Both sides are able to speak - just not on TV. I'd be dead set against limiting accurate information placed on the web, in fliers at drug stores, and in magazines.
Lets look at boner pill ads on TV. What information do they provide? That these things exist? The companies hardly need to pay big bucks to get that message out. The side effects? Besides the amusing 4 hour erection one, not much benefit there. How one compares to the other? Beats me. I'd go on the web to find that information.
Things like cholesterol drugs are even worse. You'll find out you have a problem at your doctors, and there you can ask about a range of remedies. Is thinking Lipitor must be good because it advertises really helpful?

I have no problem with the government acting to solve a problem. My problem is with the solution of censorship.

TV is not a medium equally available to all. There is already effective censorship in that public health groups who cannot afford Super Bowl ads are consigned to the 1 am PSA ghetto. Clearly drug companies should not be prohibited from going on health shows or interview shows to give their perspective. Given the lack of benefit of them advertising (except to them, of course) why not have a more level playing field?

[gonzomax]

Doctors can not keep up with the new drugs. There are more every week. They get their information from drug representatives who are marketing the drug. They often get paid for prescribing it.
It is not as blatant as it once was. They used to invite the doctor to a seminar at a nice resort ,expenses paid.

[Euphonious Polemic]

"Ask your doctor if he has recently gone on a "conference" in the Bahamas sponsored by the Purple Pill Company, and if he therefore feels obliged to prescribe Purple Pills for you!"

[Pleonast]

There always have been limits on commercial speech. The TV ads were not their views, they were presented as fact. And of course TV ads do not work ad dispassionate displays of information.
Limits on speech can be acceptable (laws against fraud, libel, threats, etc.), but outright prohibition is oppressive. It does not matter if the ads are not factual or dispassionate--free speech protects opinions as well as facts.
IANAL, but I suspect that someone selling a medicine and making claims that he has never gone to the trouble to test is not committing fraud. Any idiot can design an ad which is not fraudulent but is still misleading. We require a stronger metric in the US to sell prescription drugs than that we don't know for sure if it will kill you or not.
Please do not conflate speech with the act of selling. It is quite reasonable for the state to regulate the sales of products. It is not reasonable to, when following all regulations concerning sales, then prohibit speech advocating the sales.

The government should not be making judgements on the content of speech, beyond basic limits against fraud, etc. The proper remedy for non-fraudulent, misleading ads are other messages.
Both sides are able to speak - just not on TV. I'd be dead set against limiting accurate information placed on the web, in fliers at drug stores, and in magazines.
I do not accept that a successful, widespread medium should be singled out.
Lets look at boner pill ads on TV. What information do they provide? That these things exist? The companies hardly need to pay big bucks to get that message out. The side effects? Besides the amusing 4 hour erection one, not much benefit there. How one compares to the other? Beats me. I'd go on the web to find that information.

Things like cholesterol drugs are even worse. You'll find out you have a problem at your doctors, and there you can ask about a range of remedies. Is thinking Lipitor must be good because it advertises really helpful?

You're completely missing the point of free speech. No matter how little we value someone's contribution, we do not get to use the state's power to censor them.
TV is not a medium equally available to all. There is already effective censorship in that public health groups who cannot afford Super Bowl ads are consigned to the 1 am PSA ghetto. Clearly drug companies should not be prohibited from going on health shows or interview shows to give their perspective. Given the lack of benefit of them advertising (except to them, of course) why not have a more level playing field?
Constraints that arise because of market conditions are very different from government censorship.