Prescription Drug Advertising

It's not up to the consuming public, they are mostly too gullible and unsophisticated to understand that the commercials they see are marketing tools and not actual results of unbiased testing.

In America, Congress has gutted real unbiased, government sponsored testing programs because they have been bribed by big pharma and their lobbyists to give the money to drug companies for pseudo tests that they (drug companies) can used to sell their drugs to the unsuspecting public.

Doctors are paid billions directly by drug companies for prescribing that company's drugs.

"Most of this marketing money is directed at the physicians who do the prescribing, rather than consumers. As Oliver pointed out, drug companies spent more than $3 billion a year marketing to consumers in the U.S. in 2012, but an estimated $24 billion marketing directly to health care professionals."

Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research...

Personally, I wouldn't follow any physician's recommendations unless I first reviewed the medical information on PubMed (and/or JAMA) first and I could then ask responsible questions to see if the diagnosis and treatment made sense. Remember, half of all physicians graduated in the bottom half of their class.

I'm still skeptical, moreso of some doctors than others that the medicine that is touted on TV is also prescribed more often by those who accept payments.

Contrary to those who, for some reason, think this is a service rather than subliminal or not so subtle way to sell more drugs, I maintain that Congress, lobbyists and big pharma are why these commercials are on TV in the first place. It has nothing to do with public service or noble motives to make the world a better place. It's all about the money!

"Doctors who got money from drug and device makers prescribed a higher percentage of brand-name drugs overall than doctors who didn't, our analysis showed.

Moreover, as payments increased, brand-name prescribing rates tended to as well."

Drug-Company Payments Mirror Doctors' Brand-Name ... - NPR

I might search for the cause of a particular symptom I have, but I'll never self medicate any serious ills. Besides, you need a doctors signature to get any serious drugs.

I'd feel better knowing that my doctor wasn't being paid by big pharma to sell their [overpriced] drugs for them.

I got caught in this snafu once when my doctor prescribed an antibiotic, I went to have the prescription filled and they wanted $245... I paid but when I got home and started to take it realized that is one of a group of drugs that I was allergic to....so I took it back to the pharmacy to see if they had an alternative, but they said they couldn't take it back because it had left the store, I pointed out that it was unopened, but to no avail....so they gave me an alternate, when I asked how much they said oh those are free....since the prescription was just a precautionary measure I was more than a little peeved....

I have that problem with my cardiologist.

Nothing but name brand drugs.

I suspect that his reputation is so important to him that he's willing to spend me into the poor house to keep me alive extend my life or at least proclaim that he gave me the best care that money can buy, up until the day I died.

For years, 200 was the magic number for cholesterol, and now he's determined to get me below 100 even though my good cholesterol is great.

Now, my question is who paid for the tests that determined that 200 is now lethal, and just how unbiased were those tests?

Of course more old timers live in Florida and Arizona than most other places, so we're easy targets.

Then there's insulin and Epipens which are so grossly overpriced that many will die simply because they can't afford them.

What you mention about not being able to return a medicine you have bought is a consequence of traceability, where each step in the manufacturing and sales process of the medicine is recorded, and no step backwards (like returns) is considered nor allowed in order to protect the each of the professionals involved in the process and the patient. The pro is that you get what you have been prescribed and not a less potent / counterfeit medicine. The con is that this is by far more expensive then "the classic way" .... and someone has to pay for that (guess who!).

I used to buy antibiotics in bulk for the company I work for. The can containing (let´ say) Gentamicin costed 5 U$ FOB per kilo, but if you want to sell this product in Europe, you needed a document saying it complies with EDM (European Drug Masterfile), which is a sheat of paper with two signatures, and a couple of stamps. Exactly the same product (if issued with EDM) costed 10 times more.... In any case, once these products reached the shelf at the pharmacy, price has increased 5,000 times

Retaliate? Retaliate for what? For being informed that maybe a new drug can help someone's disease or pain. How dare the drug company give me useful information!

Sure there are ads for drugs I don't need. In fact, I don't take any prescription drugs and only a couple over-the-counter drugs, occasionally. So 99.9% of the ads are a waste of my time.

But through the miracles of modern technology, I have a device that allows me to a) mute the sound for commercials I don't want to hear and/or b) change the channel. It's called a 'remote control'. AMAZING!

The drug companies are giving you commercials, thinly veiled as "useful information".

Do you really think these commercials are genuinely designed to inform you and not to induce you to tell your doctor who has shared $24 billion marketing directly to health care professionals" that you just heard about this new "miracle" drug that will cure you.

Before drug companies started bribing doctors and making TV commercials to influence john q public, actual unbiased government sponsored testing was performed and the doctor made these medical decisions, not Aunt Millie who just saw it on TV.

Nonsense. You watch too many made-for-tv movies that conveniently use some hypothetical 'big bad' drug company executive as an easy villain.

No one is forced to watch the commercials.

No one is forced to buy the drugs.

There are dozens of websites, including many run by consumer groups, that help people obtain more information about something they've seen on TV, the internet, or printed media.

Hardly a week goes by without a new drug being released.

Almost no one has the time to visit their doctor every week to see if the doc has a new drug that might help.

Even doctors cannot keep up with every new drug.

I first heard about an OTC drug, prilosec, on a TV commercial and realized then it might help a problem I had (mild acid reflux) that I thought was a normal effect of aging.

Stop projecting your own ideas of dishonesty, or the goofy ideas you get from toxic Hollywood culture, onto the rest of the world.

You have no idea what, or if, I watch TV.

You are entitled to your own opinion, and so am I.

You're starting to sound like 911 with your OPINION of what and how I think or what I know.

You conveniently forget $24 Billion in marketing to doctors? If their drugs are so great, why must they pay doctors to prescribe them?

so, you must have recognized my advice hit pretty close to home for you. By trying to use me as a retaliatory weapon. It's not going to work Usbport is a lot more mature than that.

All because I've been proving you wrong, follow this this follow this thread starting with post #16 as an example. You're just a grumpy old man who hates what he sees in the mirror.

And stop using others members to try to aid in your bullying of others and just stay with the facts.

One more thing...

Grow up Lyn.

You are simply delusional.

Your OPINION is worthless.

First know the difference between an opinion and fact.

The link actually shows that both are your opinions Lyn.

You might want to reconsider using the terms gullible and unsophisticated in the same sentence.

A recent political candidate called members of the general public Deplorable, and that didn't go over too well either.

An unbiased approach would be to provide statistical numbers to support your contention.

A ratio on group x versus y would be interesting to see.

Can you provide these numbers ?

Think of this as the learning channel and we are your students.

Basically what your saying, be smart, responsible and do some research on your ailments.

their was a study done, I believe I even may had posted a link on another post here on CR4.

That after the doctor sees you, he'll exited the room to Google your ailments and then return with the results.

I never did believe in over prescribe certain drugs, but I do believe in them being an 'bandaid' of sorts to just aid your recovery.

For me, I hated pain killers, and I always half the prescription dose. If the doctor wants to prescribe 12 pills, I'll tell him 6 is fine. Just because I hated the side effects. But I'm also not foolish. There comes a time when I would have to take them.

The bottom line, it's you that have to take responsibility for your own health. Not necessarily the doctors. A lot of people don't or fail to realize that.

I did a quick search and found a reference about doctors using google.

of course google is for not self diagnoses, leave the diagnoses to the professionals, but it's only for you to be more informed for any questions for the doctor.

a little heads up, at first the doctor may be a little irritated if you ask a question he's not prepared for. But if you explained what you did, he'll understand.

Well the drug companies, from what I understand, subsidize medical school for most doctors, so they are somewhat obligated to push their drugs....and then of course there are the free samples the doctors give out to their financially challenged patients...it all adds up...

How true, after each and every one of these infomercials, a lieyer outfit comes on telling us how to sue for some FDA approved device or drug. I especially like the ones where a free pamphlet written by "medical professionals" is offered at no charge.

I very rarely consider what I hear in commercials as "useful information".

A Spokeperson is nothing more than a paid actor/celebrity/politician. Nothing more.

"... paid actor/celebrity/politician. Nothing more."

There's a difference?

Just the label.

I solved the problem years ago by chucking the TV out to the curb. Haven't had a TV in more than 20 years and I don't miss it.

haha that'll show 'em....there's your retaliation...or you could just netflix, sling, Hulu, streema, get all your programs on DVD's ...

That's pretty much what I do.

Q: "Why is television called a 'medium'?"

A: "Because it's rare when it's well-done."

Poor devil.

How will you ever know how to cure what ails you?

Agree with you: there are many people out there who discover symptoms they don´ t have while eating pop corn in front of the TV set.

I could of used an extra tv 20 years ago, had I seen your curb alert, I would have come and picked it up :)

Now, I understand why you get that tattoo. It's a sad story by the way.

Like Andrew I chucked the television out years ago, I can’t say I’ve missed it. Something like a documentary I can watch as and when I like using the PC.

The UK television licence is daylight robbery and I refuse to pay it.

Yes I am a curmudgeonly, tight fisted, grumpy old git.

I watch very little TV at all. I used to watch but I quit watching the news after the 800 pound yellow cheeto sucked all the intelligence out of it.

Here it's free and still not worth the price (IMO).

They odd thing is, the commercials for prescription drugs not only claim the benefits, they also have to also claim the side effects. Which some side effects include death.

It's horrible.

When I hear "death", "possibly fatal" or word to that eggect, I usually consider that whatever affliction or difficulty I have is more tolerable than the cure.

One would think it's advertising for Jacob "Jack" Kevorkian, but it's not.

In my country advertising of medicines other than OTC, like aspirin and some (light) painkillers is forbidden by law.

In my opinion these advertisements should be banned.

On the other hand (here I know many will disagree) I believe that the free access on internet to medical information to laymen is wrong, as there are many who: 1.- misdiagnose their symptoms and self-medicate, 2.- make biased assumptions on the tests or diagnoses a physician prescribes or establishes, 3.- Discuss the treatments prescribed to them, like taking less medication as prescribed (were you have a 100% chance of experiencing side-effects, and a reduced possibility of the beneficial effects sought for), 4.- There was an "epidemic" of people who do not vaccinate their kids against certain diseases, based on "reports" of severe complications that eventually were proved as wrong. 5.- As it is easier to believe in many of the "miracle treatments" published in a lot of websites, than going the "hard way" which implies making invasive and non invasive studies, trying different treatment alternatives and so on....

Patients are not Patient any more: they have no clue on biological phenomena but expect instantaneous results, no matter if some "alternative medicines" imply drinking their own urine or garlic tea for high blood pressure. The funny thing is that when they come back having had a stroke after a fuse has blown in their brain due to hypertension, it is usually the doctor´s fault for not having done "the right thing".

Medicine is not maths, and many of the treatments were or are based on trial and error, which is something we all have to understand and adhere to.

I agree with your assessment, contrary to some here. Too many people self-diagnose based on something they read on the internet. After all, if it's on the internet must be true. Like lawyers, those who diagnose themselves have a fool for a patient.

""epidemic" of people who do not vaccinate their kids against certain diseases,"

Those fools are still around in large uninformed numbers, mostly it seems are conservatives who believe what they read in radical rags like Breitbart and other propaganda mills, and have no concerns about starting a genuine, deadly epidemic through their ignorance.

From what I have seen on news programs like CNN, a large uninformed group of liberals believe 99% of what they read on noteworthy news organizations like Facebook.

Pollution on visuals

I have had good results from an online pharmacy out of Canada. Granted they are generic, but the manufacturer is a major player. This one happens to be in Turkey. My cholesterol would be the envy of a pro bowler. @solar eagle. I had the same experience with a common cholesterol med. After taking it for a week or so I broke out in hives. Fortunately I was in the service and the meds were at no charge to me.

I don't know how it is now, but in the early 90's I met fellow who desperately wanted me to sell for a pharmacy. I'm pretty good at sales of good products. You would interview doctors in your area, and give them samples. Your commission was based upon increased sales in the neighboring pharmacies.

Does anyone else remember the article about the salesman who was called in from the golf course. Turns out the surgeon stalled a new saw during hip replacement surgery. The salesman was scrubbed and completed the operation.

MRI salesman only had to sell two MRI's in the mid '90's to earn well into 6 digits.

In spite of all of this who earns more money, Dr Ben Carson or the actor who plays "House" on TV. Which drug company CEO earns more than Kanye West?

Happy New Year to all

I love the rapid fire side effects of some of these drugs. You can almost make sense out of the glib machine gun like report of the side effects. I really dont want to grow another arm or have a body part fall off or go blind.

The greed of the drug companies and the doctors are to blame.