You're kidding, right?

[NTB]

I realize CP isn't exactly an unbiased source, but still...even if only part of this article is true, it's still scary. especially this part:

The new drug application for the antibiotic, Ketek, marketed by Sanofi-Aventis, was rejected twice, in 2001 and 2003, before FDA management approved the drug on April 1, 2004, based on fraudulent studies, and over the objections of the FDA's own scientists.

:Q

I wonder what other major drugs have such a checkered history?

Nathan

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Few. Unlike most of the garbage produced by the drug industry . . . we actually NEED new, safe, and effective antibiotics.

Ketek (telithromycin) is already APPROVED for the treatment of community acquired pneumonia. Although a physician-scientist is in lockup over fraudulent data, telithromycin is not a failed drug and it was not approved due to fraudulent studies. Telithromycin works. The problem is that other drugs are available that are just as effective AND safer. But it's vital that we have multiple abx for the treatment of bacterial disease. Arguably, telithromycin is somewhat similar to Vioxx. A good drug and a needed drug . . . but not a drug that should be widely prescribed.

 

[ProfJohn]

Many people will tell you that the FDA is too tight when it comes to drugs. That is one reason why drugs cost so much, because it takes so long and costs so much to bring them to market.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Many people will tell you that the FDA is too tight when it comes to drugs. That is one reason why drugs cost so much, because it takes so long and costs so much to bring them to market.

I've got a solution to expensive drugs. Ban advertising and the "ask your doctor" suggestions. The last thing a doctor needs is a patient demanding a particular drug because it will "help" them. Leave the drug decisions to the doctor and get that crap off the air.

Oh wait, that'd actually make drugs affordable...

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Many people will tell you that the FDA is too tight when it comes to drugs. That is one reason why drugs cost so much, because it takes so long and costs so much to bring them to market.

I've got a solution to expensive drugs. Ban advertising and the "ask your doctor" suggestions. The last thing a doctor needs is a patient demanding a particular drug because it will "help" them. Leave the drug decisions to the doctor and get that crap off the air.

Oh wait, that'd actually make drugs affordable...

No thanks. That's too harsh of a restriction on freedom of speech. I think that the advertising can also be knowledgeable to the public.

If a patient demands a drug and the doctor prescribes it without reason, then perhaps the doctor should be punished.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Many people will tell you that the FDA is too tight when it comes to drugs. That is one reason why drugs cost so much, because it takes so long and costs so much to bring them to market.

I've got a solution to expensive drugs. Ban advertising and the "ask your doctor" suggestions. The last thing a doctor needs is a patient demanding a particular drug because it will "help" them. Leave the drug decisions to the doctor and get that crap off the air.

Oh wait, that'd actually make drugs affordable...

No thanks. That's too harsh of a restriction on freedom of speech. I think that the advertising can also be knowledgeable to the public.

If a patient demands a drug and the doctor prescribes it without reason, then perhaps the doctor should be punished.

Maybe its the thousands of dollars in extra cash doctors get when they dish out perscriptions.

 

[ProfJohn]

Advertising for drugs is a touchy area.
Companies should be able to try and make a profit off their research, but then again how much money should they spend on this when it adds to the cost of medicines that help people.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Many people will tell you that the FDA is too tight when it comes to drugs. That is one reason why drugs cost so much, because it takes so long and costs so much to bring them to market.

I've got a solution to expensive drugs. Ban advertising and the "ask your doctor" suggestions. The last thing a doctor needs is a patient demanding a particular drug because it will "help" them. Leave the drug decisions to the doctor and get that crap off the air.

Oh wait, that'd actually make drugs affordable...

No thanks. That's too harsh of a restriction on freedom of speech. I think that the advertising can also be knowledgeable to the public.

If a patient demands a drug and the doctor prescribes it without reason, then perhaps the doctor should be punished.

1) Advertising for prescription drugs is inherently misleading . . . exaggerates benefits and minimizes the risks.

2) There is no freedom of speech for half-truths.

3) Most of the public that gets 'educated' by a 30sec commercial winds up ill-informed.

4) Physicians should be held accountable for inappropriate prescribing practices. I get patients every day where I scratch my head and say, "what the Hell was your doctor(s) trying to do?!"

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Many people will tell you that the FDA is too tight when it comes to drugs. That is one reason why drugs cost so much, because it takes so long and costs so much to bring them to market.

I've got a solution to expensive drugs. Ban advertising and the "ask your doctor" suggestions. The last thing a doctor needs is a patient demanding a particular drug because it will "help" them. Leave the drug decisions to the doctor and get that crap off the air.

Oh wait, that'd actually make drugs affordable...

No thanks. That's too harsh of a restriction on freedom of speech. I think that the advertising can also be knowledgeable to the public.

If a patient demands a drug and the doctor prescribes it without reason, then perhaps the doctor should be punished.

1) Advertising for prescription drugs is inherently misleading . . . exaggerates benefits and minimizes the risks.

2) There is no freedom of speech for half-truths.

3) Most of the public that gets 'educated' by a 30sec commercial winds up ill-informed.

4) Physicians should be held accountable for inappropriate prescribing practices. I get patients every day where I scratch my head and say, "what the Hell was your doctor(s) trying to do?!"

1) Most advertising stresses the benefits. I see drug advertisements with side effects all the time. It already seems to have some restrictions. Do you think that Apple is going to advertise that the iPod can attract lightning?

2) It's just advertising. Sorry, but unpopular speech should be protected.

3) Many people may be misinformed, but the extra layer of having to go through a doctor for drugs protects them. I still think that the advertising can be informative. Obviously you should not trust them 100%.

However, I think that many people would not know of various conditions and remedies if not for advertisements. For example, I know people who have had sleeping problems and decided to go to a doctor based on seeing advertisements for various sleeping medications. It makes people aware that there is a possible solution - encourages them to go see a doctor when otherwise they would not.

 

[Hacp]

3) Many people may be misinformed, but the extra layer of having to go through a doctor for drugs protects them. I still think that the advertising can be informative. Obviously you should not trust them 100%.

Pharmies also pay doctors extra whenever they perscribe their drugs. Advertising makes potentially life saving drugs more expensive. There's a reason why we have patents for drugs. We want the Pharmies to research lifesaving drugs. Putting these drugs off the table for many americans will not serve that purpose.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Hacp

3) Many people may be misinformed, but the extra layer of having to go through a doctor for drugs protects them. I still think that the advertising can be informative. Obviously you should not trust them 100%.

Pharmies also pay doctors extra whenever they perscribe their drugs. Advertising makes potentially life saving drugs more expensive. There's a reason why we have patents for drugs. We want the Pharmies to research lifesaving drugs. Putting these drugs off the table for many americans will not serve that purpose.

Unfortunately, that is an ill we must live with that comes with the the principles of the US. I don't think that someone else's rights should be eliminated just because I may be inconvenienced. We are not Canada or Europe where only the majority is allowed to have rights.

I think that you can come up with positive and negatives for both sides of the argument. I can argue that eliminating the advertisements will make some people live in misery not knowing a solution is possible. That would also put drugs off the table for many Americans and will not serve their purpose.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Hacp

3) Many people may be misinformed, but the extra layer of having to go through a doctor for drugs protects them. I still think that the advertising can be informative. Obviously you should not trust them 100%.

Pharmies also pay doctors extra whenever they perscribe their drugs. Advertising makes potentially life saving drugs more expensive. There's a reason why we have patents for drugs. We want the Pharmies to research lifesaving drugs. Putting these drugs off the table for many americans will not serve that purpose.

Unfortunately, that is an ill we must live with that comes with the the principles of the US. I don't think that someone else's rights should be eliminated just because I may be inconvenienced. We are not Canada or Europe where only the majority is allowed to have rights.

I think that you can come up with positive and negatives for both sides of the argument. I can argue that eliminating the advertisements will make some people live in misery not knowing a solution is possible. That would also put drugs off the table for many Americans and will not serve their purpose.

I think doctors will know about the drugs, and will prescribe them if they feel the patient needs them.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Hacp

3) Many people may be misinformed, but the extra layer of having to go through a doctor for drugs protects them. I still think that the advertising can be informative. Obviously you should not trust them 100%.

Pharmies also pay doctors extra whenever they perscribe their drugs. Advertising makes potentially life saving drugs more expensive. There's a reason why we have patents for drugs. We want the Pharmies to research lifesaving drugs. Putting these drugs off the table for many americans will not serve that purpose.

Unfortunately, that is an ill we must live with that comes with the the principles of the US. I don't think that someone else's rights should be eliminated just because I may be inconvenienced. We are not Canada or Europe where only the majority is allowed to have rights.

I think that you can come up with positive and negatives for both sides of the argument. I can argue that eliminating the advertisements will make some people live in misery not knowing a solution is possible. That would also put drugs off the table for many Americans and will not serve their purpose.

I think doctors will know about the drugs, and will prescribe them if they feel the patient needs them.

That's already the case.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Hacp

3) Many people may be misinformed, but the extra layer of having to go through a doctor for drugs protects them. I still think that the advertising can be informative. Obviously you should not trust them 100%.

Pharmies also pay doctors extra whenever they perscribe their drugs. Advertising makes potentially life saving drugs more expensive. There's a reason why we have patents for drugs. We want the Pharmies to research lifesaving drugs. Putting these drugs off the table for many americans will not serve that purpose.

Unfortunately, that is an ill we must live with that comes with the the principles of the US. I don't think that someone else's rights should be eliminated just because I may be inconvenienced. We are not Canada or Europe where only the majority is allowed to have rights.

I think that you can come up with positive and negatives for both sides of the argument. I can argue that eliminating the advertisements will make some people live in misery not knowing a solution is possible. That would also put drugs off the table for many Americans and will not serve their purpose.

I think doctors will know about the drugs, and will prescribe them if they feel the patient needs them.

That's already the case.

So why advertise then?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Hacp

So why advertise then?

I already stated reasons.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

A doctor who is willing to recieve payment for the drugs he prescribes is not a doctor that i'd ever want to go to.

In EU the drugs are cheaper (some drugs are 1/10th of what you pay over there) because our system does not allow that sort of thing, if a doctor prescribes one drug, whatever drug, then the pharmacy will exchange that drug for the cheapest available drug with the same effective ingredient, no one except the patient, the pharmacy and the doctor will ever know what drugs are prescribed, what amount and when.

Advertising prescription drugs with misleading statements does not fall under free speech for obvious (at least to me) reasons.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

CanOfWorms, "We are not Canada or Europe where only the majority is allowed to have rights. "

The irony is so thick i could cut it with a knife.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
A doctor who is willing to recieve payment for the drugs he prescribes is not a doctor that i'd ever want to go to.

In EU the drugs are cheaper (some drugs are 1/10th of what you pay over there) because our system does not allow that sort of thing, if a doctor prescribes one drug, whatever drug, then the pharmacy will exchange that drug for the cheapest available drug with the same effective ingredient, no one except the patient, the pharmacy and the doctor will ever know what drugs are prescribed, what amount and when.

Advertising prescription drugs with misleading statements does not fall under free speech for obvious (at least to me) reasons.

I am not talking about advertisements with lies.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
CanOfWorms, "We are not Canada or Europe where only the majority is allowed to have rights. "

The irony is so thick i could cut it with a knife.

I can cut this with a spoon.

Though I guess in the UK, I would have to ammend it to that the Queen is the only one allowed to have rights.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
A doctor who is willing to recieve payment for the drugs he prescribes is not a doctor that i'd ever want to go to.

In EU the drugs are cheaper (some drugs are 1/10th of what you pay over there) because our system does not allow that sort of thing, if a doctor prescribes one drug, whatever drug, then the pharmacy will exchange that drug for the cheapest available drug with the same effective ingredient, no one except the patient, the pharmacy and the doctor will ever know what drugs are prescribed, what amount and when.

Advertising prescription drugs with misleading statements does not fall under free speech for obvious (at least to me) reasons.

I am not talking about advertisements with lies.

Statements that are KNOWN to be false are always lies and that is pretty much everything but claiming just plainly stating what is on the insert including the side effects, untold information is also a form of a lie. Normally this doesn't matter, but in this case it really does because it's a potentially harmful drug (as all drugs that have any effect are).

I really don't get how all of this works though and i'll admit that, how on earth do you trust a doctor that will prescribe you expensive potentially harmful medication to get more money?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Many people will tell you that the FDA is too tight when it comes to drugs. That is one reason why drugs cost so much, because it takes so long and costs so much to bring them to market.

Yea and then they let up and you have a lot of drug recalls and people asking why the FDA let it go through.
It happens every so often. FDA is tight so people get mad. FDA lossens up and releses drugs more quickly and then there are some bad ones that get through and people ask why the FDA did not catch it. Then the FDA gets tight again and we start all over.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
CanOfWorms, "We are not Canada or Europe where only the majority is allowed to have rights. "

The irony is so thick i could cut it with a knife.

I can cut this with a spoon.

Though I guess in the UK, I would have to ammend it to that the Queen is the only one allowed to have rights.

Nice, i guess that is the best you can do?

We still have the right to talk in private, to wear t-shirts saying what the feck we want them to say and to insult our leaders in public.

So while we may not have enough freedoms we certainly have more than you guys.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Advertising prescription drugs is at best a silly waste of people's time and the drug companies' money. My favorite drug ad ever: "Ask your doctor about the purple pill called Nexxium." That was it; the whole ad was just ask your doctor about this drug. No information on what it might help treat, no mention of any side effects; nothing. That is a complete waste of money on behalf of the drug manufacturer. But that cost gets passed on to the consumer when they ask their doctor about this magical purple pill (I still have no idea what Nexxium is for, btw).

There's really no reason to advertise something that no one can buy without a prescription. What, am I supposed to feign a disease just so I can try out this well-marketed pill? No thanks.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
A doctor who is willing to recieve payment for the drugs he prescribes is not a doctor that i'd ever want to go to.

In EU the drugs are cheaper (some drugs are 1/10th of what you pay over there) because our system does not allow that sort of thing, if a doctor prescribes one drug, whatever drug, then the pharmacy will exchange that drug for the cheapest available drug with the same effective ingredient, no one except the patient, the pharmacy and the doctor will ever know what drugs are prescribed, what amount and when.

Advertising prescription drugs with misleading statements does not fall under free speech for obvious (at least to me) reasons.

I am not talking about advertisements with lies.

Statements that are KNOWN to be false are always lies and that is pretty much everything but claiming just plainly stating what is on the insert including the side effects, untold information is also a form of a lie. Normally this doesn't matter, but in this case it really does because it's a potentially harmful drug (as all drugs that have any effect are).

I really don't get how all of this works though and i'll admit that, how on earth do you trust a doctor that will prescribe you expensive potentially harmful medication to get more money?

There is untold information on everything. Advertisements are not encloypedias.

You cannot purchase prescriptions drugs without a doctor, so there is already a level of protection from harm.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
CanOfWorms, "We are not Canada or Europe where only the majority is allowed to have rights. "

The irony is so thick i could cut it with a knife.

I can cut this with a spoon.

Though I guess in the UK, I would have to ammend it to that the Queen is the only one allowed to have rights.

Nice, i guess that is the best you can do?

We still have the right to talk in private, to wear t-shirts saying what the feck we want them to say and to insult our leaders in public.

So while we may not have enough freedoms we certainly have more than you guys.

Sorry, I disagree.