General Cycling Discussion - whats with all the Drugcommercials?

upon returning to the US from first Europe and
then South Africa I was kind of shocked to see
the number of commercials for perscription drugs on TV.
I firmly believe that we are encouraging self
diagnosis and treatment (Nexium, ask your doctor).
I wonder how many physicians are gonna say no
when a patient comes in and says "I think I have
acid reflux disease (or depression, or allergies or
any of the other made for TV illnesses) and I NEED
Nexium, Prilosec (sp?) or whatever they are pushing on
the idiot box.
I worked in hospital for 16 years doing ER consultations
and I NEVER heard the diagnosis GAD (generalized anxiety disorder),
whats up with that?
Does this disturb anyone else or is it just me?
Has Europe gone the same way? its been 5 years
since I spent any time there.

just had to vent a bit, thats all.

Marty

By "informing" consumers, they are trying to put pressure on Dr's to prescribe their product.

Most Dr's seem to be opposed to the practice. Too bad the hypcondriac public doesn't; they are requesting the drugs regardless of cost.

ALL advertising is a con game. I don't understand why people are so willing to believe it.

It's not just you. I've noticed the same thing on American television.

Every country's medical culture approaches illness and medication differently, and I find that -- from what I've read and observed -- Americans are somewhat more inclined to medicate than people in other countries.

The only time I see those ads, by the way, is on American television. They don't run on canadian channels.

The known known side effects of Velocilotec (TM) may include drowsiness, dry mouth, hives, chills, muscle spasms, hebephrenia, ephasia, hallucinations, blindness, apoxia, coma and death.

I think they stink for a few reasons:
1. They'll put these right up against anti-drug commercials. What kind of message is that? Don't do those drugs over there, but yes, definitely do these drugs over here. This creates neuroses, and therefore, the demand for Paxil.
2. They rarely tell you what the drug is for, rather say things like "only zantac is zantac". Huh? What's that mean?
3. They will tell you every undesirable side effect no matter how graphic they are, and it's usually when you're sitting down for dinner. "May cause unwanted rectal discharge" - remember that one? Thanks, Eli Lily, for plugging that image in my brain.
4. Why are they marketing directly to the general public if they must be acquired through a prescription?
5. Many of the drugs are unnecessary and are made to cover up the effects of poor lifestyle choices: a corrective action rather than preventative, thereby prolonging the problem and creating the need for more medicine.

The prescription drug industry is very strong in the States. There is soooo much money involved that they have near free reign to do anything. Their lobbyists openly bribe doctors and politicians. I can’t remember the last time I was in a doctor’s waiting room and I wasn’t accompanied by @ least one drug rep. I'm really not worried about the commercials. It's the stuff that is happening that isn't readily apparent that concerns me. I also believe that this industry is involved heavily in the “Partnership for a Drug Free America” propaganda war.

The message is simple – drugs are bad – unless you buy them from us. :rolleyes:

I believe it was against the law to advertise prescription drugs on TV until a few years ago. It is required by law that they list all side effects. They wouldn't point out the negatives if they didn't have to. I detest self medication and overuse of over the counter and/or prescription drugs. If I feel pain, it's because my body has a problem and is telling me about it. Why would I want to stifle this great feedback and control system with drugs? If I have a cold, I want my immune system to fight the germs or virus. If I use antibiotics to do the work, won't my immune system get weaker? I hardly ever get sick and I think it has alot to do with "exercising" my immune system. The body has the ability to heal itself in most cases so why don't we let it?

I lived in England for about 6 months, and I don't remember seeing commercials for over-the-counter medicine even. I wanted to buy a bottle of ibuprofen to keep around the house while I was there, but I could only buy it in packs of 16 or so. And even then there was a little sign that said you couldn't buy more than 2 or 3 at a time.

Not trying to anger anyone, just want to shed some light on the subject. I work in the pharm industry and this is some of what I have learned in the course of my job:

1. It was illegal to advertise until recently

2. The debate still rages on the affects of DTC (direct to consumer) advertising as it is called, on the Doctor/Patient relationship.

3. Some patients like the feeling of empowerment that comes with this added knowledge.

Yes I agree that side affects list can be worrisome and gross. As for how to stop it (and I say this as a student of government not an expert) write/contact your legislators. The industry isn't so powerful that you can't make a difference or maybe my youth is causing my idealism .

Just my 2 cents

I overheard an ad for... was it Nexium? "It's today's purple pill." What a RELEVANT piece of information! :rolleyes: Just one more reason I watch about 2 hours of television a year. In fact, the last time I watched much television was almost a year ago, and you can all understand the significance of that... :(

Originally posted by velocipedio
The known known side effects of Velocilotec (TM) may include drowsiness, dry mouth, hives, chills, muscle spasms, hebephrenia, ephasia, hallucinations, blindness, apoxia, coma and death.
It's hard to say which is worse, selling directly to the consumer through television advertising, or promotion of particular drugs through the trusted physicians themselves. Where do doctors get their information about the drugs they prescribe (and give away in free samples?) What about medical conventions sponsored by drug companies, in which doctors enjoy every kind special treatment free of charge?

On the other side of the coin, there are many life-extending drugs available for people with serious conditions whose lives would be less than lovely without them. My wife is one of those, who takes a chemotherapy drug to suppress her immune system, which in turn alleviates most of the symptoms of her rheumatoid arthritis. Without this highly toxic drug, she would be in intense pain everyday, perhaps bedridden. Which is worse, a bad drug or a bad disease? She would tell you quickly, "a bad disease."

But I have to admit these drug ad's are almost humorous in a dark sort of way. Picture children playing and laughing in a field, Mom with them. The narrator is spewing out words rapidly like an auctioneer: "Side effects include dry mouth, nausea, vomiting and sexual side effects with possible liver damage..."

:eek:

My favorite side effect for one of these TV drugs (some sort of fat-blocker or something similar) was something about a sudden, unexpected oily discharge.

As for me, I'd rather be fat and not sh*t myself, but since they are selling this drug, this is apparently not a unanimous belief.

:D

Originally posted by bac
My favorite side effect for one of these TV drugs (some sort of fat-blocker or something similar) was something about a sudden, unexpected oily discharge.

As for me, I'd rather be fat and not sh*t myself, but since they are selling this drug, this is apparently not a unanimous belief.

:D
Now that drug is puzzling. A drug that allows you to eat whatever you want without absorbing the fat.

<AHEM!>

I have an idea: DON'T EAT SO MUCH FAT!!!

Originally posted by JDP
It is required by law that they list all side effects.

Anybody remember the Clariton (sp?) ads, when perscription drug ads were first legal? If they told you about the drug, they would have to list the side effects. So instead, they showed 60 seconds of a surrealisticly beautiful spring-like scenes, and how wonderful life was again, and at the end, listed a web-site where you could go find out what the h#ll they were talking about.

There's huge money in Rx drugs, and it's a market that does well regardless of general economic conditions. The ads probably aren't going away.

Exercise is the way to better health, not drugs.

Why so many drug commericials? Because our way of life has become busy and hectic. We don't have time to deal with our health problems (and we're too lazy) so we take a drug.

Take my wife for example. Now she is a great gal and has a heart of gold. But she hates exercise in any form, so now she is overweight and hates that. Instead of exercising she goes to her doctor to get a new drug called Meridian. Now my wife is so happy that she is going to loose weight. The doctor told her that she has patients on this already and has had success.

So, here we are 8 months later and she comes back from her doctor with a NEW pill - for high blood pressure, which is one of the side affects of Meridian.

Instead of the doctor telling my wife to
1) stop the meridian
2) turn off the TV
3) get her butt of the couch
4) go outdoors

the doctor gives her ANOTHER pill to counteract the sideaffects of the first one.

I have preached to her that no drug will get her to loose weight only by sweating will that happen, but she won't listen to me.

So she is gonna have to realize that on her own before it is too late.

THAT'S our society and why we are addicted to these drugs.

WE ARE LAZY!

I guess I will soon see what side effects this NEW drug for high blood pressure has......

Originally posted by digger
Instead of the doctor telling my wife to
1) stop the meridian
2) turn off the TV
3) get her butt of the couch
4) go outdoors

the doctor gives her ANOTHER pill to counteract the sideaffects of the first one.

No offense, but you may want to try another doctor. This one seems to already be a slave to the perscription drug lord.

Hey, take a pill!....

Actually, I think there was a recent US tax-law change that allows for a larger credit for "drug" advertising.

The companies recoup so much on the tax-break that it costs little to promote the drugs......

The real beauty of the present congressional setup is how easy it is to travel to Washington and bribe 40 or 50 law makers at once instead of actually having to spend time and money traveling around to all the states to bribe them......individually....

Man, now I'm all depressed.....

Originally posted by digger
Instead of exercising she goes to her doctor to get a new drug called Meridian. Now my wife is so happy that she is going to loose weight.

So, here we are 8 months later and she comes back from her doctor with a NEW pill - for high blood pressure, which is one of the side affects of Meridian.

The effects of cycling (on me) tend to be interesting:

1) I have more energy (like stimulants,) but I'm more relaxed (like tranquilizers.)
2) I can eat more food, but not gain weight (like fat-blockers.)
3) I don't feel as hungry (like appetite suppressants.)
4) My mood is elevated (like antidepressants.)
5) My blood pressure is lower (like blood pressure medications.)

I bet there are more things cycling does for me that no drugs yet exist to mimic the effects of.

Guess I have to add my pennyworth to this. In South Africa a few years back, the government of (then) national unity authorised an aids awareness campaign where a roadshow was taken through the townships and demonstrations were given where condoms were promoted as a front-line defence against the spread of aids. To demonstrate how a condom was used, it was rolled onto the end of a broomstick handle, free condoms were handed out, and the roadshow moved on.

A while later, a photo turned up showing how condoms were being used. I think it showed a kraal and around it to protect against the aids 'spirit', were a number of sticks with, you guessed it, condoms on them.:)

I have read that the drug pushers- rather companies- advertise high end (costly) 'designer' drugs- that most insurance companies will not cover.This is an attempt to force their acceptance upon insurance companies..
They would rather put their resources in these highly profitable 'designer drugs'; over making medicines that would have actual health needs to fight diseases that threaten us with insignificant needs- such as a dreaded epidemic.

There also seems to be the issue of cheap "copied" drugs vs. more expensive, "original" brands. After a certain period of time the copyright to any given drug expires, enabling copycats to produce the same drug under a different brand name and sell it at a cheaper price.

We have an ongoing debate of whether the doctor should automatically prescribe the cheapest alternative or not (they usually don't) and if the patient should be able to require the cheapest alternative at the drug store regardless of what the doctor ordered.

--J

In South Africa a few months back, there was a very large outcry and a mass demonstration about the responsibility that drug companies have once a patent has expired. Some companies began to promote generic medicines, but the combined might of the large companies tried to suppress this, as the naturally had a financial interest in promoting newer (read more expensive) drugs whilst still tapping into (high profits) of the now patent expired drugs.

The outcome was in a way, a victory for the people, who argued their case in court (I seem to recall) and the government effectively coerced the drug companies into making cheaper generics available commercially. They hissed and snarled like they were rabid dogs, but they lost.

During the apertheid years, the mass protest and boycott aimed at commercial operations perhaps did more damage than good in many areas. But this was one occasion where the same power of protest, brought large corporations to the table and where people susceptible to disease were for once able to get medicines they desperately needed.

I have an interest in this directly. I have diabetes, I need insulin and I need access to blood glucose diagnostic strips. If you look at what goes into a blood glucose strip, it is nothing more than a piece of plastic, containing some wafer-thin electrodes, and an enzyme which is mass produced. The drug companies charge an exorbitant amount for these supplies. Fortunately, the NHS in the UK pay for them, but every tax payer pays for them. I am not suprised to read that in some areas of the world, people with diabetes can only test their blood glucose once a month assuming they can get to the ad hoc walk-in clinics. As for insulin, there is anecdotal evidence that again, there are areas in the world where people share needles, share insulin, and take it in turns to 'own' it for a day and then pass it on.

I don't mind drug companies making a profit, but this is one area of their practice that I find utterly revolting.

Originally posted by Pete Clark


The effects of cycling (on me) tend to be interesting:

2) I can eat more food, but not gain weight (like fat-blockers.)
3) I don't feel as hungry (like appetite suppressants.)


I have to disagree with #3. I get really hungry between meals since I've started commuting. I just split my lunch up so that I eat it in 3 different portions throughout the day. I also eat more but because of #2, appetite suppressants are not necessary and would probably be bad for my health.

Originally posted by Bokkie

A while later, a photo turned up showing how condoms were being used. I think it showed a kraal and around it to protect against the aids 'spirit', were a number of sticks with, you guessed it, condoms on them.:)
Well this is better than the letter sending campaign where
you guessed it they stapled condoms to the letters (right
thru the middle of the packet).
Still major fights about retro viral drugs in RSA and the
current government of unity refusing to make them available
to the masses, President says they are "untested", meanwhile
the HIV rate in some provinces is above 33%

Marty

Not sure about the ethics of all this. However,I think they are trying to recover some of the extensive R&D costs involved with new drugs. Not to mention the cost of trying to get approval from the FDA and then advertising!

Just playing devil's advocate here: All of us have benefitted from pharmaceutical innovation in one way or another. Some may have enjoyed the benefits of a longer lasting less drowsy allergy med, making our rides that much more enjoyable. Or a pain medication for our joints after those long rides.

Besides getting rid of TV ads, what is the alternative to drug innovation. We created the demand, and it could be said the drug companies are giving us what we wanted.

Like I said just playing DA, hopefully you kind folks won't run me out of town....

Cyclochica.. When I first moved to California, I worked for a San Diego firm that makes the test kit used to detect male prostate cancer. Lab people, during lunch would say the mark up is over 10,000 percent to the consumer...
As to recovering r and d costs. Much of the r and d is done by either the government drug agencies or smaller innovative firms that get bought out by the bigger fish- in order to get the patent rights... In this firms case, that was the pattern. When a big Michigan drug firm bought out this former innovative firm (r and d wise) the first thing they did was cut the r and d staff of this formerly innovative firm to shreds.
When the big fish buy out the smaller fish- it is to get a bigger market share, not to bring about innovation.. Seems like patent rights on drugs is for 20 years..That is my personal experience as an employee and from what I read..
Why is it we can cross over into Canada or Mexico and buy the same drug for as much as 60 % less. Think they are selling it below cost. ! I don't think so. it is because we allow ourselves to be suckers..

I've been in the prescription pharmaceutical industry my entire career (in marketing, nonetheless), and frankly I am disappointed in the misinformation that is spread based on conjecture.

Pharmaceutical companies have started advertising on television as a result of changes in the FDA advertising regulations a few years ago. There are still numerous regulations regarding DTC advertising, which is why commericals require pharma companies to list all the side-effects--in the industry it's called, "fair-balance".

I won't specifically react to many of the "industry-bashing" comments I've read so far, but will ad my own statements.

Pharmaceuticals are still a small percentage of the overall healthcare spend (last figure I saw was less than 10%). Where's all the other money going? Why don't people question physician's salaries, the costs of hospital stays, surgery, etc.?

Advertising prescription medications that could help treat serious medical conditions is bad, but it's O.K. to advertise the products that cause these conditions (e.g., can't advertise a cholesterol-lowering drug, but we can advertise every candybar ever made, every fast food restaurant, etc. ,etc.)? Seems unreasonable to me.

Prescriptions drugs have been proven time and again to prevent worsening conditions, lower healthcare risk, and reduce or eliminate hospital stays, surgery, and death. How much is that worth? I personally just completed two years of drug treatment that potentially SAVED MY LIFE. The cost--over $30,000. Without treatment I had two options (1) l have a liver transplant in 5-10 years (at a cost of over $250,000 ++), or (2) die. I'm not upset about the cost, sorry.

The reason pharmaceutical companies try to promote their products is to compete with their competitors, just like any other industry. The pharmceutical companies (in my personal experience) are not out to get every consumer to take their product. But, if you have a condition that needs treating (e.g., high cholesterol), I certainly want you to take my product and not my competitor's. I don't know of any company that purposely tries to get patients to take a product for a condition they don't have.

Finally, pharmaceuticals have brought a lot to the U.S. and world economy. There's a reason there's pressure on the pharmaceutical companies to advertise and promote products--it's called INVESTORS. before people decide to attack the pharmaceutical industry, they should be sure they are not holding any pharmceutical stock in their portfolios, 401k, etc.

It's a very tricky line that is walked in this industry--it's HIGHLY regulated (believe it or not), very risky (yes, it is true that companies may spend up to $400 million or more on a R&D project, only to have the product never come to market), is held to high performance standards (by the investing community), and is in the healthcare business. Not an easy challenge for any company.

I'm done ranting. I hope this provided some calrity to the situation. I don't ever hope to change minds, because it rarely works. But, I do like to provide facts whenever I can.

You guys seem to have the problem right. Now how do we get the rest of the world to understand that drugs/medicens have there place - when you're real sick not for all those made up ailments. One of you said he couldn't even convince his wife.

Wow what a sad state of a mess we are in.

Joe:crash:

Well this is better than the letter sending campaign where you guessed it they stapled condoms to the letters (right thru the middle of the packet). Still major fights about retro viral drugs in RSA and the current government of unity refusing to make them available to the masses, President says they are "untested", meanwhile the HIV rate in some provinces is above 33%

In KwaZulu Natal it is possibly closer to 40% or higher. My wife used to work as a midwife at the Park Lane hospital in Joburg. In the final year before she quit nursing, all pregnant patients from elsewhere in Africa that came to Joburg for delivery were routinely screened for Aids on admission. The % infection was 90%. I don't think it is wise to extrapolate that into the population in general, but under-reporting is a technique used to dilute the seriousness and potential accountability of the disease.

I used to work for a bank in Joburg, so had occasion to meet actuaries on occasions. The cost on healthcare in the next 15-20 years will be prohibitive.

Pharmaceuticals are still a small percentage of the overall healthcare spend (last figure I saw was less than 10%). Where's all the other money going? Why don't people question physician's salaries, the costs of hospital stays, surgery, etc.?

Fair point. The crux is that the combined efforts of all aspects of health care are driven to exploit the maximum cash potential on offer. Health administrations know that I as a patient cannot go elsewhere. In Cambridge, it was and still is, known as Hobson’s Choice, on account that only one licensed cab company operated in the city. You pay the fare, or you walk. You pay the fee, or you die.


Advertising prescription medications that could help treat serious medical conditions is bad, but it's O.K. to advertise the products that cause these conditions (e.g., can't advertise a cholesterol-lowering drug, but we can advertise every candybar ever made, every fast food restaurant, etc. ,etc.)? Seems unreasonable to me.

Agreed. As a diabetic, I still smart over the mindless promotion of sweets, junk food, etc that contribute directly to the disease.


Prescriptions drugs have been proven time and again to prevent worsening conditions, lower healthcare risk, and reduce or eliminate hospital stays, surgery, and death. How much is that worth? I personally just completed two years of drug treatment that potentially SAVED MY LIFE. The cost--over $30,000. Without treatment I had two options (1) l have a liver transplant in 5-10 years (at a cost of over $250,000 ++), or (2) die. I'm not upset about the cost, sorry.

I’m not criticising you for that. But is it not the case that sometimes the cost of the drugs is sometimes disproportionate to the value derived? In your case it was not. Taking this further, my wife knew a pharmacist that prescribed surgery supplies to the theatres. The drugs were prescribed as a box set, say 20 for example. Six might be used. Fourteen are returned. The pharmacist, kept the returned stock, then, when he had 20 would re-box it and send it up again as a new prescription product, scoring several times on the cost.


It's a very tricky line that is walked in this industry--it's HIGHLY regulated (believe it or not), very risky (yes, it is true that companies may spend up to $400 million or more on a R&D project, only to have the product never come to market), is held to high performance standards (by the investing community), and is in the healthcare business. Not an easy challenge for any company.

I’m being tongue-in-cheek here. But the industry is not consistently making $400m failures? If it were, none would be in business. I don’t know what % of drugs fail to make it.

Take my diabetes, something I know an awful lot of about. The technology exists to make a reusable strip, but no one does. I actually managed once to get two tests from a single strip, by peeling back the plastic layer and fiddling about with the electrodes and discovering that if I bridged the remaining reagent carefully it could possibly work. Only once did it. But it proved it could be done. So why doesn’t the industry do more in that line? I’m sure they know it can be done, I’m sure the marketing people know it can be done, I’m sure the R&D team know it can be done, but what’s the point if the bottom line is compromised? I have a debt to Banting and Best and for the rest of my life will do so. Banting (discover of insulin) shared his portion of the Nobel Prize with Best. Not because he had to but because it was right to do so. Ely Lilly, NovoNordisk, and now Aventis have made substantial strides in recombinant-DNA technology to produce purer insulin and that’s good.

But go to the third world countries like Mozambique, Zambia, Botswana, Malawi, places I know very well. Ask the people who live there who are desperate for insulin, who are emaciated, in DKA coma what they have to look forward to, and they will not know how to answer you. Let them ask you what your company could do? What answer would/could you give? “Sorry, mate, we’d like to help but I don’t think our investors would approve the expense”.

I’m not picking a fight with you, honest, and I’m sorry if I’ve caused any offence. I suppose the attitude of the industry is like the arms manufacturers – we only make the gun, we are not responsible for the way it is used.

Bokkie,

First, I take no offense when people constructively disagree with me on issues--don't worry about that.

I'd like to add some coments. Regarding the R&D issue, I can tell you that, you are correct, that not all products are $400 million failures. However, there are FAR more $400 million failures than there are $1 billion blockbusters (which, BTW, are those that are doing most of the on-air advertising).

I won't argue with you on the relative value of treatment. However, one factor that most people don't take into consideration is quality of life. For example, sticking with my cholesterol-lowering example, is it worth $1000 per year to prevent a potentially fatal heart-attack? Hard to say. The problem I have found with the most common drugs (in the U.S., I'm talking about drugs to treat hypertension, high cholesterol--cardiac conditions), is they are used to treat conditions that don't directly cause the patient any noticeable pain or discomfort. So, when they go to the pharmacy and pick up their prescriptions, they are angry at the price because they don't feel sick.

I won't comment on the Mozambique, Zambia, etc. situation because we are then getting into socio-political issues rather than business issues. I will say that I personally do not wish to see any human being suffer when there are solutions to a problem.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my original message.

Funny I worked for a bank in Jo'burg too, although on
the software side.
I agree re the extrapolation the last I heard KZ was reporting
40% positive for women at neonatal clinics. And I'm betting that
a majority of the population there never gets to a clinic.
the 90% figure doesn't surprize me at all.

Marty

Funny I worked for a bank in Jo'burg too, although on

Off thread, but which bank? I'm also in the software side of things, and I used to work for Nedcor, at the top of Katherine Street, just behind Sandton City shopping mall.

Two things I have to say:

1. Every time they start advertising a new prescription weight-loss, youth-preserving, or sexual-boost drug, I am inundated by spam offers to sell me some directly, without a prescription. I can't help wondering whether the drug companies might have a stake in this.

2. It is a fact that the drug companies will sell the EXACT same medicines for veterinary use at a fraction of the cost that they sell it for human use. I have had several friends on dog medicine (identical, right down to the color/shape of the pills) because they could afford it better than they could afford the identical human medication! If a pill costs 5 cents when marketted for a dog, why should it be $5 with a different label on the bottle?

I, too, feel that the commercials are made to prey on hypochondriacs, who will see the commercial, run to their doctors and demand a prescription. Before mass advertising of drugs was permitted, drug companies were limited to advertising directly to the doctors, who were better equipped to make intelligent, informed choices than untrained patients! (No good advertising to someone who KNOWS your product is garbage already, eh?) On the other hand, I have some faith in doctors, and believe that most (or at least many) of them are responsible enough NOT to just throw drugs at a patient who wants the shiny new toy they saw on TV.

2. It is a fact that the drug companies will sell the EXACT same medicines for veterinary use at a fraction of the cost that they sell it for human use. I have had several friends on dog medicine (identical, right down to the color/shape of the pills) because they could afford it better than they could afford the identical human medication! If a pill costs 5 cents when marketted for a dog, why should it be $5 with a different label on the bottle?

I know that diabetic pets are prescribed the same insulin that I use, but not having one I don't know what the cost might be but it's an interesting point you've raised.

How did your friend pull it off? I can see something like the scene from a movie I saw (I forget its name) but it had Nick Nolte (inadvertently caught up and implicated) in a bank robbery by a hapless Martin Short trying to get money to do soemthing for his daughter. Nolte gets shot and is treated by a senile vet, who scratches his chest and ears, and puts his meals in a dogs bowl on the floor.:D

Inkwolf,

You are correct that sometimes similar products are approved for veterinary use. The pricing differential versus human use is related to many different factors.

More importantly, on your first point. Pharmaceutical companies HATE the direct-to-patient selling of their product through unregulated companies that offer products without prescriptions.

First, there is evidence that many of the "lifestyle" drugs have been couterfeited and don't contain the right amount, or any, active ingredient. These products are often the ones sold through these "black market" sources.

Second, believe it or not, pharmaceutical companies do want their product to be used appropriately. There is nothing to gain by pushing a product on people who don't need it because (1) it will not show the results it should, and (2) it could cause harm if not given under the proper supervision of a physician. Side effects and drug interactions must be carefully monitored to avoid problems. No pharma company wants their product to cause harm to a patient. It is not to the advantage of a pharmaceutical company to promote inappropriate use of a product only to risk problems with the FDA down the road. A product withdrawal can cost a company Billions (literally) of dollars....just not worth the risk.

Everyone wants to target pharma companies as being these evil, dark companies out to rip-off the consumer. It's just not that way. I am a trained healthcare professional who took an oath to help patients and provide quality healthcare. I can honestly say, working in this industry has never forced me to compromise my professional or personal ethics, or to violate the oath that I took.

Everyone wants to target pharma companies as being these evil, dark companies out to rip-off the consumer. It's just not that way. I am a trained healthcare professional who took an oath to help patients and provide quality healthcare. I can honestly say, working in this industry has never forced me to compromise my professional or personal ethics, or to violate the oath that I took.

Unfortunately for 'x' number that comply with their oaths, there is a 'y' number that do not. We've recently had some high profile cases in the UK where surgeons (literally butchers if the evidence of the patients is to be believed) have been struck off for acting in a manner totally inconsistent with their oath. That has the unfortunate knock-on effect where people begin to doubt the integrity of all health-care professionals - all get tarred with the same brush, and it takes a lot of effort to redress that.

I also read a book some years ago about Nazi domination in Europe, and one chapter focussed on medical ethics and practices during the war. Things like eugenics, euthenasia, experimental surgery on children and Jews in concentration camps - that sort of harrowing thing. The ethical dilemma that was raised was simple enough - should medical research from those experiments be used as a catalyst for further medical treatment, research and practice elsewhere? The author concluded that as destestable as the Nazi medical program was, it advanced medical knowledge all the same.

I'm still choked by that question. Guess it's one to which there is no answer.

Bokkie,

Who are you? when did you work at Nedcor?
When did you leave?
105 west? or were you at Sandton Place (North Block)?
Send me PM or EM.

Marty

Originally posted by Bokkie
How did your friend pull it off? I can see something like the scene from a movie I saw (I forget its name) but it had Nick Nolte (inadvertently caught up and implicated) in a bank robbery by a hapless Martin Short trying to get money to do soemthing for his daughter. Nolte gets shot and is treated by a senile vet, who scratches his chest and ears, and puts his meals in a dogs bowl on the floor.:D

Heh, heh...I remember that one! My friend shows dogs, and has friends who are dog breeders and vets. The vets are the ones who told her about the human/dog switches. My own vet says the same thing, though I haven't had occasion to ask them for any pills yet. My personal ailments are generally simple and only require antihistamines.

And, BikingCT, I'm aware that the pharmaceutical companies aren't evil demons seeking to exploit people....any more than any OTHER big company, that is. The sad truth is that the larger a company is, the less the individual consciences of its directors matter, and the more important the profit margin becomes.

The reason drug companies make us angrier than, say, hotel chains, is that health care is a requirement of life that we all feel entitled to....we'd be just as angry at the food companies if they were run the same way. However, the government has controls to make sure basic food prices stay reasonable (even if the actual food producers are getting screwed over) so that's one necessity of life that can't be saddled with a huge profit margin and a lot of multi-million dollar salaried CEO's. Trust me, if the government removed all controls from food prices, and the only way to eat was to buy the product of a huge corporation, the food companies would charge $10 for a slice of bread and we would all hate them for it, too.

Ink,

Glad to hear we're not any worse than other big companies...phew! :)

I guess the latter half of your statement is relative. How about government controls that limit the production of certain foods (e.g., grains) in order to keep prices higher? Heck, if people really knew the mark-up on most consumer goods, they'd go crazy. If you think branded pharmaceutical companies are bad, look at the prices of cereal, fruits and vegetables, ground beef, etc. No R&D required and limited advertising (on the veggies and meat anyway) costs. Not to mention the mark-up on many other commercial goods (e.g., soft drinks, snack foods, etc.).

I do understand your point and perspective. There is an alternative....generic pharmaceutical products do cost a lot less than branded (though many unique products still don't have generic competitors). Yet, most consumers still choose a branded product when they have a choice.

There's never a winner in these types of discussions, but I do enjoy the debate!!



:beer:

Thank God the US Government isn't in the back pocket of the drug companies. We all know cheaper drugs made by the same company but purchased in Canada are deadly poison and we must be prevented from purchasing them.

upon returning to the US from first Europe and
then South Africa I was kind of shocked to see
the number of commercials for perscription drugs on TV.
I firmly believe that we are encouraging self
diagnosis and treatment (Nexium, ask your doctor).
I wonder how many physicians are gonna say no
when a patient comes in and says "I think I have
acid reflux disease (or depression, or allergies or
any of the other made for TV illnesses) and I NEED
Nexium, Prilosec (sp?) or whatever they are pushing on
the idiot box.
I worked in hospital for 16 years doing ER consultations
and I NEVER heard the diagnosis GAD (generalized anxiety disorder),
whats up with that?
Does this disturb anyone else or is it just me?
Has Europe gone the same way? its been 5 years
since I spent any time there.

just had to vent a bit, thats all.

Marty

Welcome to the Twilight Zone, aka America in the 21st Century. It's every person for themselves and the corporations above all. 'Ask your doctor' how you can improve the profits of your favorite pharmaceutical company 'cause you're just not happy with the quality of your life anymore, brought to you by your local corporate TV station, and their corporate advertisers. Gotcha!!

Every country's medical culture approaches illness and medication differently, and I find that -- from what I've read and observed -- Americans are somewhat more inclined to medicate than people in other countries.
yes, this is VERY true from my experience in Germany...

the average person here doesn't even know what ibuprofin is... i'm NOT what i would consider a "drug-happy" American, but by European standards i am... and stuff like aspirin or alergy medicine or ibuprofuin that is basically like candy in the US --- "if you don't feel 100% today, just pop a few pills" is ONLY used when absolutely necessary. most Germans will only take meds if they have no other choice -- i.e. medically necessary or EXTREME pain/discomfort...

i agree that it is a HUGE cultural difference. i personally am somewhere in the middle in that i think it can be OK to use some meds, but haphazardly "using" drugs for every little problem is wrong --- if you have headaches and stress, maybe you need to fic your life, not pop a pill?

Does this disturb anyone else or is it just me?
Has Europe gone the same way? its been 5 years
since I spent any time there.
Germany does not yet have these commercials... although i did see a Lance Armstrong add promoting cancer research and drugs... probably the closest i have yet seen.

and as far as i know, i do not think it is a threatening issue like in the US.

the big differences between Europe and the US:
1) with socialized medicine the European governments want to control the costs, so EVEN though the drug companies also do HUGE lobbying, the effect is less b/c a) money has less effect in German politics than the US (i said less, not that it is not a STRONG effect) and b) the government has it's own interests
2) the German/EU government in general has a much higher standard to protect consumers from corporate interest -- whereas the US in years past has been "let the companies do what they want - who cares if it's not good for the public?"
3) as mentioned in my previos post, there is a cultural difference and Germans are less likely to go to meds...

Why so many drug commericials? Because our way of life has become busy and hectic. We don't have time to deal with our health problems (and we're too lazy) so we take a drug.

Take my wife for example. Now she is a great gal and has a heart of gold. But she hates exercise in any form, so now she is overweight and hates that. Instead of exercising she goes to her doctor to get a new drug called Meridian. Now my wife is so happy that she is going to loose weight. The doctor told her that she has patients on this already and has had success.
hey digger, i think this strikes it right on the head.

my German girlfriend just finished medical school. she did an internship in the US about 2 years ago in Mississippi and she was SHOCKED b/c SO MANY people came in and said "i am fat" or "i have this problem". "please give me drugs to fix it"... this is an AMERICAN attitude --- ignore the problem and "fix" it with drugs. of course the American attitudes of corporatations-first and work-work and the lazy-out-of-shape (above) are all spreading to the rest of the world as "progress"... note: yes there _can_ be good things associates with this "progress" but the bad can easily outweigh the good...

unfortunately the prescription drug companies love this attitude, they have lots of money and will continue to support this attitude of the public with big $$$$$ and the government seems to be completely caving to the $$$ and doctors are also in many cases PARTNERING with drug companies and basically promoting the drugs (for their own profit) which should not be legal b/c of moral reasons, but as far as i understand it is being somewhat allowed (i think there have been attempts to restrict doctor-pharmacuidical relationships often with "stupid" rules, but the overall effect has been minimal) - reason being that the drug companies will try and get around any legislation or restrictions that are passed... ---> because there is BIG money here!

There also seems to be the issue of cheap "copied" drugs vs. more expensive, "original" brands. After a certain period of time the copyright to any given drug expires, enabling copycats to produce the same drug under a different brand name and sell it at a cheaper price.

We have an ongoing debate of whether the doctor should automatically prescribe the cheapest alternative or not (they usually don't) and if the patient should be able to require the cheapest alternative at the drug store regardless of what the doctor ordered.

yes, in Germany this year this issue was adressed. up until this year, a pharmacy could NOT substitute for a generic brand even if the patient wanted to. Now in Germany the Doctor writes the perspriction - either for a name-brand or the actual scientific name -- then at the time of filling at the pharmacy the pharmacist checks if "generics" are available and if so asks the customer which he would like (and respective costs). this was a HUGE issue as the drug companies in Germany of course did NOT want this, but it will save the government and the people a lot of money.

My impressions:

Human versus animal costs...if your dog dies because of drug side effect your not going to get diddly from a lawsuit.....if your 2 - year old dies your get millions.

America Vs. Canada...Down here in S. Florida we regurlarly have arrests for practiciing medicine without a license. Recently there was a pharmaceutical arrest. It will happen within months of legalizing drug purchases from Canada.... Grandma buys the cheaper blood pressure medecine but in reality its nothing....something a 'crook' is selling to deceive the public. Next thing you know grandmas dead.

Something I have noticed lately is thats its much more difficult to get free samples from doctors. Last year, when I was prescription drug dependent, I scored hundreds, if not over a thousand dollars worth of prescription 'samples'. Recently I tried getting some more.....nothing.

Advertising for anti-platlet drugs kills me. so you go to the doc for some Plavix so your arteries dont clog with platlets. You have a heart attack and need surgery. Plavix will make you bleed for days.....not a good combination in the OR. We have had to give patients blood transfusion who otherwise wouldnt have needed it if it werent for anti-platlet drugs.

Asprin..Plavix....nightmares....automatic platlet transfusions.