No, I’m not. I know the FDA has to approve all drug labels and advertising, but I don’t know if there is a specific standard for how often a side effect has to occur before it gets included in a label or an ad. What Ferret Herder says sounds right - a side effect would be something that happens significantly more often to patients on the drug instead of a placebo. I doubt they have to include every side effect. Drugs are tested on hundreds or thousands of people before they are approved. If every change in a person’s health during a study had to be included as a possible side effect, things like colds and coughs and flu would be in the list of side effects for everything.
They’ll say it may increase the risk of death, or the risk of death due to whatever condition the patients died of.
Another of my least favorite selling phrases is “They don’t want you to know”.
There are 587 million hits that come up on Google when this term is plugged in, mostly having to do with alleged cures/fixes for various health or money problems (perhaps the most notorious recent example was convicted con man Kevin Trudeau’s best-selling book about Natural Cures THEY don’t want you to know about.
Nothing like a dose of paranoia to make the marks cough up their dough.
After all, physicians really don’t want you to know about wonderful simple cheap no-side effects cures for everything from toenail fungus to cancer. Rather, we want you (and ourselves and families) to suffer because…well, because we’re evil, and we’ve sold our souls to Big Pharma.
Like a Rock. (if I never hear that goddamned song again it will be too soon)
Back in the 80’s there was some half assed chicken/rice product that you cooked at home. This woman makes & eats it and then proclaims:
“Mmmm. Tender and moist.” The way she said it was creepy.
“I’m Peter Fuckhead Geraci” They play these ads 5 zillion times a day.
“If you’re aged 60-80 you cannot be turned down for any reason” What if you’re 62 and on death row in Texas?
Not words, but I never want to hear sirens or alarm clocks in any commercial ever again.
And I never want to hear ANY of the words in THIS commercial EVER again.
Another annoying one: “Just X cents per day!” along with “For the cost of X (e.g. a cup of coffee) you can Y (e.g. support a child in Africa, feed a family of 200, send a needy child to school, etc.”
If you shorten the time enough, you can make any number you want. My monthly car loan payment, for example, is merely 55 cents per hour.
Not commonly used, but I hate that one hair dye commercial where they describe their product as “prismatic” and “multifaceted.” I can’t quite pinpoint why that bothers me so much, but it does. Describing it as “pretentious” doesn’t quite cut it, for some reason.
The “webuyanycar.com” earworm is insidiously catchy. I can’t decide whether I love it or hate it. But…
Oh dear God yes. It’s bad enough when Giovanni Compari sings it but the fat sweaty guy who says it in the sell-us-your-phone advert makes me want to punch him in the face in a way that requires a long run-up first. Horrible.
How about the thing in commercials where whenever a family all sits down to eat the breakfast cereal du jour or the latest brand of peanut butter sandwich or whatever, everybody sitting at the table smiles and nods at each other as they take a bite. I don’t know why, but that makes me want to throw things.
My contribution to the topic:
TECHNOLOGY
Especially in cosmetics/hair-care commercials. ‘With the latest in ion-enhancing microbead technology.’
Sorry, I don’t think I was clear earlier. I don’t disagree with you or this point. My question is when they say “There’s a rare chance of X occuring.” I want to know how they define rare. Is there a maximum percentage that can be declared as rare? I agree that they’re only going to list the side effects that occur significantly more in the test than control groups. I want significantly defined. I know I won’t get it and usually I don’t care, but what gets me is things like an allergy medicine that may cause death in a small percentage of the population. <– How do you let a statement like that stand without qualifying it? I want to know more. Sure I got allergies, and it’s inconvienent, but exactly how large a chance am I taking with death beore taking this medicine? This is my main question. I’d feel a lot happier knowing there’s some regulation that says to use rare, the side effect must occur in less than 1% or the subjects tested. I also would like to know how large a study was preformed, but I believe all this is listed on the FDA website and they regulate that minimum requirements must be met to go to stages 1-3 for testing. However, should they have chosen a larger group than normal, and that 1% is smaller than expected, I’d be even happier and more likely to buy the drug.
Take this in another context. If I were to offer you 10,000 dollars, but there was less than a 1% chance you might die, would you take it? What about 3% or 10%? How much would I need to raise the reward for you to take this. The money is the percieved payoff for taking the drug and how much I’m willing to risk taking it. Now if I’m dying with two months to live, and there’s this drug that kills 70% of the group, but cures the rest would I take it? Sure, the payoff is worth the risk, IMHO. Heck, I’d take it if there was a 5% chance of success. I just want to be able to think of these things when taking drugs, most especially when one of the side effects may be death or some fate worse than death, like (I think it was Catwhisperer that mentioned this, not sure) that drug that resulted in permanent loss of muscle control. Man! I never even heard of that side effect until the other doper pointed it out.
I hate ads where the announcer says something like, “Just listen to what our customers are saying!”, and the commercial switches to a “real customer” who is clearly reading professionally-written ad copy:
“I’m so happy now that I’ve joined the 1.5 million people who have already switched to…”
It’s kind of like those ads for Enzyte where they say something to the effect of, “Over X-million men have purchased Enzyte. Could we be doing this well if it didn’t work?” Actually, yes, yes you could.
OK, this is only for Bing ads, but I never want to hear LOS LIIIINNNKKSSSSS ever again Ad 1 Ad 2
I’ve never heard of a product claim that it has no chemicals in it. Could you give an example?
You know what really irks me about this type of ploy? It’s totally illogical.
Here’s a scenario: You’re the head of R&D for Pfizer. You start to hear claims that the common cold can be cured with sassafrass tea. So you do a little research and find out–holy smokes! It’s true!
So what’s your next step?
a. Scramble to get a sassafrass tea product to market before Eli Lilly et al. figure it out and beat you to the punch. Then profit!
or
b. Try to suppress the information and cross your fingers and hope that Eli Lilly et al. do the same thing.
Uh…I know which one I’d choose.
Yes, big pharma and the medical industry want to make lots and lots of money. A remedy that actually WORKS represents an opportunity to make lots and lots of money. So why wouldn’t they try to cash in on it themselves?
And even if they feel that they make more on selling NyQuil than they would on selling something to cure the disease, if some other company sells a cure that really works, they’re screwed anyway.
“They” don’t cure shit. The last thing they cured was polio, and they’re still pissed about all the money they lost on that. They’ll never cure anything again, it’s all about making money on the comeback. Just like all drug dealers.[/Chris Rock]
Kills 99% of germs on surfaces where they grow? Well, the 1% remaining have proven themselves to be tough, strong survivors that will multiply anew. That’s right! By using antibacterials, we’re breeding stronger bacteria! Isn’t that fun?
Food isn’t necessarily a sin. But Gluttony IS one of the big 7. So by that definition, wouldn’t anything McDonalds considers a “meal” be considered sinful?