Monday, July 13, 2015

Certain Rare Cancers Have Been Reported





When I grew up in the 1950's and 1960's, you routinely saw and heard advertisements for non-prescription medicines. In those remote times, cigarettes and beer ads were also routinely permitted--so the question of the public's health was decidedly an ambiguous matter from a regulatory standpoint. 

Over the last two decades, spending by pharmaceutical companies on lobbying, and advertising to the general public on television, have mushroomed. Drug companies are making very big money on a host of new products, designed to appeal to people who have common chronic afflictions, like high blood pressure and high cholesterol, indigestion and irregularity, depression, diabetes, obesity, sleep disorders, joint and muscle disease, chronic pain, skin hair and nail problems, and so forth. None of these conditions is new, and the treatments are generally familiar and routine. 

Non-prescription medicine is available to the general public, because it's considered safe enough that ordinary people can be trusted to use it in a safe way. Prescription medicine is considered to be safe only when prescribed by, and taken under the supervision of, a trained physician. Marketing prescription medication over public media to the general public is a relatively new phenomena--the campaign to convince people that taking riskier artificial or synthetic substances is going to make a significant difference in their lives. 

Many of the new drugs aren't even "primary" treatment products. They're just designed to "help" when used in conjunction with a primary treatment regimen. 

It used to be that drug companies targeted their campaigns to pharmacists and doctors. When I was growing up, the father of one of my friends was a pharmacist. He'd received hundreds of "gifts" and come-ons every year, to influence him to promote the use of one or another commercially marketed pills or applications, in the hope that he would recommend them to his customers. Toys, paperweights, pens, calendars, it was a relentless flow. 

Today, drug companies have gotten permission to promote prescription medications directly to the general public. 

We've all seen the new ads. They have fancy names, scientific sounding--like Verdaxa, or Duvadin, or Clinolix--and we know the FDA has passed them, but FDA approval apparently doesn't guarantee safety, at least not any more.

On each ad, there is a cheerful vignette of someone performing daily routines, or on vacation. They're all smiles, liberated from the distractions of their medical issues, getting on with life, celebrating just being alive. 

But while all this visual drama is taking place, a comforting voice is narrating the serious side effects which may accompany the desired "cures" the drug was designed to effect. The possible "side-effects" of a pill for depression may include heart attack, stomach ulcers, swollen feet, and even "certain rare cancers." 

You would think that any advertisement which was required to inform you about all the bad things which could happen to you if you used a product, would probably not work. 

But we all know that big corporations aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be using these ads if they weren't working. 

Americans have always loved taking medicine, and it's becoming more true every year. Is it because we have an inordinate credulity for panaceas? Do we think we can medicate ourselves into health? 

Most people know that eating a good diet, and exercising regularly, are the best behaviors for good health. Smoking, drinking immoderately, living a sedentary life, being socially isolated, or taking unnecessary risks such as driving too fast, or crossing streets while texting--these are all behaviors designed to shorten your life, or to lead to poor health.

But people are not rational. They will do things they know are bad for them, out of sheer laziness, or simple mischief. 

People can be convinced of almost anything--right up to, and including, committing suicide.

The pharmaceutical companies know this, and they rely on it. 

Would you take a drug which "might" help with a chronic condition, but which carried the risk of certain much more serious side effects? 


"Certain rare cancers have been reported."  


3 comments:

Charles Shere said...

l've often thought that public health for all could be financed by a tax on over-the-counter "health" products.

Joan said...

Pharmaceutical companies have always been allowed to advertise in print and TV media. However years ago they were required to include the Full Prescribing Information, also known as the Physicians Package Insert, along with all content.
An example is found here at http://www.rxabbvie.com/pdf/humira.pdf

It's pages and pages of detailed info in very small print. This alone made drug advertising cost prohibitive.

Somewhere along the way the Powers That Be changed the regulations so that this content was no longer required.

Lo and behold the ads started coming...

DJF said...

Back in the 60's I remember that movies, tv, books etc had a common comedic character, the hypochondriac, usually in bed with a nightstand filled with bottles of pills.

But as the drug companies got more money the media showed fewer and fewer such characters that might upset their advertizers