Nightly news pushing medication

[Suzukian]

Let's face it, advertising works.
Is "advertising" not the one and only reason so many already "star" status singers and actors are going nearly nude on red carpet media events/ presentations around the world?

Advertising doesn't work. They shove this cr@p down you throat (eyes0 and you think it works? Where's the empirical data, other than some advertising company selling some company that it can sell more drugs by advertising. Look at all the negative posts in this thread. Not one person in support. Oh, maybe we're special and read through all of this.

I think of my circle of friends, the comments on my forum, and my family, nobody buys into this stuff. Did you drink the Cool Aid or something?

[LAB3]

20 years ago when I went through chemo there was a new (for the time) drug being advertised on TV that you'd get the day after an infusion called Neulasta. It's only use was for chemo patients to help boost the immune system so you didn't end up dead from some common illness like the flu or pneumonia.

So I asked myself "Why would they need to advertise this drug to the general public? Is it because my doctor doesn't know about it?" After a couple of years I finally got my answer: The drug companies get a write off for advertising costs, plain and simple! At $3000 per injection they had SO much money coming in they had to "burn" some of it to get a lower tax rate on the profits. Kinda blows the whole "It's expensive to develop a new drug" argument right out of the water.

You outta see the "branded" office supplies and free snacks the psych med salespeople hand out. Stationary, pens, markers, pretty much all the day to day needs in that type of office. Everyone shows up for the morning meeting with antidepressant and antipsychotic coffee mugs and grabs an individually wrapped pastry treat with a little Xanax logo in the corner.

Drug companies also pay for "continuing education programs" where they discuss a new topic along with a pitch for their latest potion to help treat it. You gotta be one of the folks signing a script to get in on the best of those sessions, they fly the docs in and put them up in a room along side a golf course, they go to a presentation for a.half day and have they're greens fees covered as well.

None of this is hidden knowledge, it's all out in the open with no behind the scenes conspiracy story, just the way it is. Ask your doctor!

[Suzukian]

I find nothing in your post that I disagree with.

[bwringer]

LAB3, your information is pretty far out of date for the US. The gravy train of free stuff in doctor's offices mostly ended starting around 2009/2010 when the industry adopted new guidelines. This was mostly self-regulation, not a change in Federal law, but "sunshine" laws requiring greater disclosure helped prompt the change, along with greater state regulation.

Around this time, new state regulations started popping up, and a lot of practices, systems, and education-affiliated institutions banned or seriously restricted gifts, and many do not even allow pharmaceutical reps to enter the building. The golf outings as you describe just don't happen any more, and in no case can be tied to prescribing the drug o' the day.

This also costs the pharma industry a lot less, so they didn't squawk too much about it. The "arms race" was getting ridiculous and expensive, and was starting to become a pretty bad look for pharma and for doctors.

In addition, HIPAA was passed in 1996, but implementation took several years. The early 2000's were the time that the regulations required by HIPAA were coming into effect, industry practices were changing, and enforcement was ramping up. This also brought greater attention to privacy and ethical concerns.

Anyway, does stuff as blatant as the golf outing you describe still happen sometimes? Not really; only a few doctors are in a position to accept any of that. Prescribers do need CE (continuing education) credits, so pharma companies sometimes have a presence in these, but they have to be super low-key, and in no case can they require evidence or attestation that a prescriber has or will prescribe their potion.

Do pharma companies find other ways to exert influence? Sure, and the biggest example is the topic of this thread, advertising directly to consumers. This has greatly increased because they are more restricted in reaching prescribers directly. This is ethically very questionable at best, and is not allowed in most of the world, but so far in the US it's still a thing. So we have to see the lady with the crapper in her car over and over and over again...



From the '90s through around 2015 or so, my Mom was a Clinical Nurse Specialist, sort of a super-nurse who can prescribe medication. She was kind of upset when the gravy train changed, because she greatly enjoyed collecting the swag. And yeah, she attended quite a few free pharma dinners.

Whether free pens and steaks actually ever influenced her prescribing is hard to say. Her specialty was psychiatry, specifically maintaining folks with chronic mental illness, and the last several years of her career were during a huge revolution in psychiatric meds.

So sure, she had a lot of Seroquel pens, but Seroquel also genuinely made a huge improvement in a lot of lives. (And of course, even better stuff has come along since then.)

Of course, some meds were just plain duds, or had side effects the pharma companies didn't bother to disclose. She never once believed anything the pharma reps told her and did a lot of research and networking before trying anything new with her patients. In her mind, she was simply taking advantage of the stupid pharma reps and collecting cool pens and groovy plastic brain models and such. And as in any advertising, the harder they pushed something, the less likely that it actually worked.

Pretty decent article on some of this:

https://www.mdlinx.com/article/a-physician-s-guide-to-acceptable-pharma-swag/lfc-3715

[Vmass]

20 years ago when I went through chemo there was a new (for the time) drug being advertised on TV that you'd get the day after an infusion called Neulasta. It's only use was for chemo patients to help boost the immune system so you didn't end up dead from some common illness like the flu or pneumonia.

So I asked myself "Why would they need to advertise this drug to the general public? Is it because my doctor doesn't know about it?" After a couple of years I finally got my answer: The drug companies get a write off for advertising costs, plain and simple! At $3000 per injection they had SO much money coming in they had to "burn" some of it to get a lower tax rate on the profits. Kinda blows the whole "It's expensive to develop a new drug" argument right out of the water.

You outta see the "branded" office supplies and free snacks the psych med salespeople hand out. Stationary, pens, markers, pretty much all the day to day needs in that type of office. Everyone shows up for the morning meeting with antidepressant and antipsychotic coffee mugs and grabs an individually wrapped pastry treat with a little Xanax logo in the corner.

Drug companies also pay for "continuing education programs" where they discuss a new topic along with a pitch for their latest potion to help treat it. You gotta be one of the folks signing a script to get in on the best of those sessions, they fly the docs in and put them up in a room along side a golf course, they go to a presentation for a.half day and have they're greens fees covered as well.

None of this is hidden knowledge, it's all out in the open with no behind the scenes conspiracy story, just the way it is. Ask your doctor!

Years ago my doctor told me about the hottie pharmaceutical reps that would wine and dine the Docs, booze cruises etc. Sure, this type of promotion was certainly a write-off, but ultimately it was to to get those pens to scribble those unrecognizable signatures.

[Suzukian]

"Trulicity" is the next drug that, and similar ones like it, for people who may have or be near having Adult Inset Diabetes that gets hit by lawsuits. My Endocrinologist told me I was "close" so he wanted to put me on "Trulicity". I said O.K., I should have read the numbers and understood adult onset Diabetes, but I trusted him. He had caught an issue that not fixed, would have killed me in around 5 years.

I started slowly feeling a burning situation. My Endocrinologist had retired, and the doctor who replaced him just said "It's nothing" keep on with the Trulicity. When it got to the point that I could outline my Pancreas with a Sharpie because of the pain and burning. I stopped going to that doctor. I was having a problem finding a good G.P., and 4 months later did. I had a long consultation, and he drew blood and did tests in his office. He asked me how long it had been since I had taken any medicine for Diabetes. I told him, "4 months". He said my Blood Sugar was perfectly normal and to take nothing for Diabetes. He checked me again 3 months later, same result. Now my Pancreas burns, mildly, all the time. Antacids don't touch it, and it burps into my stomach and I get 3 loud "hiccups' every time I consume anything, even water, I don't feel them coming and can't stop them, it's very embarrassing. Trulicity damaged my Pancreas.

In microscopic printing, even on the paperwork that comes with the medicine, it reads"To be used with people who exercise a lot and are extremely active". I have 10 messed up discs in my back. I'm not one of those people running on the beach, climbing indoor mountains, of water skiing. Running or bicycling all over the place. I did a simple diet change, and changed my blood sugar. I don't drink anything that has Corn Syrup in it as a sweetener, and virtually drink no "soda'. That took care of any problems with high sugar.

There is a class action suit against this family of drugs, as I am not the only one this has happened to. I joined that suit, when on my forum last week, two members posted they have had the same problem.

[RichDesmond]

While we're at it, what cig. add. said "I'd rather fight than switch", and which one was a silly millimeter longer?

Tarington (sp?) ?? I remember the magazine ads, the model would have a black eye.

Benson & Hedges 101's??

[rphillips]

Close Rich, Taryton smokers would rather fight than switch, and Chesterfield 101's were a silly millimeter longer.

[Rob S.]

Don't forget the females. Virginia Slims - ooh, sexy!

[rphillips]

Rob, your spelling is terrible... take out the "r" & 3rd "i", and last word needs an "e" in it slimes...

[Rob S.]

Rob, your spelling is terrible... take out the "r" & 3rd "i", and last word needs an "e" in it slimes...

Tennessee, Jed? (Ain't no place I'd rather be. )

[argonsagas]

Advertising doesn't work. They shove this cr@p down you throat (eyes0 and you think it works? Where's the empirical data, other than some advertising company selling some company that it can sell more drugs by advertising. Look at all the negative posts in this thread. Not one person in support. Oh, maybe we're special and read through all of this.

I think of my circle of friends, the comments on my forum, and my family, nobody buys into this stuff. Did you drink the Cool Aid or something?

Advertising does work.
My son, who is not quite four, instantly recognizes the music intro for Arbie's commercials and he chants the words along with them. The older boys (9) go along with him.
Frankly, even though their commercials have had the line for many years, I never thought "Arbie's....We have the meats" was more than barely memorable, but it hits home with kids.....and they want parents to buy the advertised products.

It has been used extensively to influence or even change lifestyles of target audiences. Tobacco producers long ago finessed this, as is seen in some of the comments above, which refer to commercials that date back quite a few years..

Medicine producers are now following that format, with at least one company pushing vaccines for prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) in children as young as nine.
(My wife pointed that one out to me last night) .

[LAB3]

Medicine producers are now following that format, with at least one company pushing vaccines for prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) in children as young as nine.
(My wife pointed that one out to me last night) .

I'm guessing that's for HPV which has been linked to cancer later in life. You might not like the idea of your daughter taking an STD preventative but let's face facts here, sex at that age probably isn't going to be consensual. Couple that with the possible long term outcomes and that's why my daughter got that shot at age 12 just after it was introduced.

[Suzukian]

Advertising works on people who are susceptible to advertising, easily lead, and somewhat gullible. Those who have need for something research it, and then come to a conclusion. I hope to don't eat at "Arbies" too much, their food is gross. You can se those little circles in their so called "Roast Beef", those are the ends of the veins and arteries they grind up, and then press back into shape, with a little beef blood glue.

[earlfor]

Advertising works on people who are susceptible to advertising, easily lead, and somewhat gullible. Those who have need for something research it, and then come to a conclusion. I hope to don't eat at "Arbies" too much, their food is gross. You can se those little circles in their so called "Roast Beef", those are the ends of the veins and arteries they grind up, and then press back into shape, with a little beef blood glue.

I haven't eaten at Arby's in probably 25+ years. In the same timeline, it does remind me of my last venture into an Outback Steakhouse. (think flame grilled steaks) I had ordered my steak and when it was served, it looked unusually thick. On examination, they had cooked two that were stuck together. I pried them apart and what do ya know, there were grilll marks on the sides that were together.