<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The FDA and You (and EthicAd)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://postscript.communitycatalyst.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://postscript.communitycatalyst.org/?p=198</link>
	<description>A Blog by Community Catalyst</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 May 2010 16:23:42 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dan Abshear</title>
		<link>http://postscript.communitycatalyst.org/?p=198&#038;cpage=1#comment-1058</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Abshear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:19:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prescriptionproject.org/blog/?p=198#comment-1058</guid>
		<description>Daily, particularly viewed on TV during prime time hours, pharmaceutical commercials frequent your TV screen.  The commercials usually contain a drug involved in a large-market disease and the commercial is sponsored by a big pharmaceutical company. This is called direct to consumer (DTC) advertising, and health care providers in particular would prefer they did not exist.

Since 1997, when the FDA relaxed regulations regarding this form of advertising, the popularity of these commercials greatly increased. Now, the pharmaceutical industry spends around $5 billion annually on this gigantic media effort. Normally, the commercial airs within a year of the drug’s approval, which raises safety concerns and involves money spent that could be applied to greater uses, according to many. But, we are dealing with a corporation here.

The purpose of DTC ads is not education, in my opinion, as others have claimed. Any advertising of any type shares the same objective — to increase sales and grow their market — in this case, for a particular perceived medical condition or disease state. The intent of DTC advertising is to generate an emotional response from the viewer, such as fear or concern, believing upon research that the viewer will then question as to whether they need to seek treatment for what may be an unconfirmed medical condition. The most interesting ones are for erectile dysfunction (ED) during primetime TV, with the real possibility of children watching. Further surreal is that these particular commercials seem to have ED sufferers portrayed as those who could probably run marathons, which is not realistic from a clinical perspective.

DTC advertising is also a catalyst for and similar to disease mongering. Disease mongering is the creation of what some believe to be medical flaws. It is illustrated by the drug companies through exaggeration and embellishments via various media sources as an avenue for propaganda — often seen with DTC advertising. Though the flaws may not be medical, the corporate creation of these questionable human ailments that do not require treatment, possibly, may be an attempt to develop a particular medical condition to acquire profit.

One of my favorite DTCs is the new indication for the use of an anti-depressant for a social disorder. This used to be called introversion, a term created by Dr. Carl Yung. It is a personality trait, not a medical disease. There are other questionable medical conditions claimed in the contents of DTC commercials, as the creators wish to grow the market for a particular, and possibly fictional, disease state. Then there is baldness treatments being advertised, as another example. Lifestyle meds are not treatment meds for illnesses, and should not be portrayed as such.

Also, DTC ads normally discuss a single treatment option when likely several treatment options exist for authentic medical disorders. This should be left to the discretion of the physician, as they assess your health, not your TV or another media source. That’s why most of the world does not conduct DTC advertising, with the exception of America and New Zealand.

Finally, DTC advertising and its ability to influence viewers to make their own assessment instead of a medical professionals remains largely unregulated, yet apparently effective for the DTC creators. People are prone to believe what they see and hear, regardless of whether or not it is actually true. After viewing a DTC ad, many seek out a doctor visit and request whatever product that was advertised, which makes the doctor’s situation quite cumbersome. So the doctor and patient relationship is altered in a negative fashion since most DTC advertised drugs require a prescription.

Medical information and claims of suggested health ailments should come from those in the medical field instead of the corporate world. Perhaps this will save some of our over-prescribing habits, which will benefit all of us in the long term. And the health care system can regain control of its purpose, which is far from financial prosperity.

Men of ill judgment oft ignore the good that lies within their hands till they have lost it.
— Sophocles

Dan Abshear
Author&#039;s note:  what has been written is based upon information and belief.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Daily, particularly viewed on TV during prime time hours, pharmaceutical commercials frequent your TV screen.  The commercials usually contain a drug involved in a large-market disease and the commercial is sponsored by a big pharmaceutical company. This is called direct to consumer (DTC) advertising, and health care providers in particular would prefer they did not exist.</p>
<p>Since 1997, when the FDA relaxed regulations regarding this form of advertising, the popularity of these commercials greatly increased. Now, the pharmaceutical industry spends around $5 billion annually on this gigantic media effort. Normally, the commercial airs within a year of the drug’s approval, which raises safety concerns and involves money spent that could be applied to greater uses, according to many. But, we are dealing with a corporation here.</p>
<p>The purpose of DTC ads is not education, in my opinion, as others have claimed. Any advertising of any type shares the same objective — to increase sales and grow their market — in this case, for a particular perceived medical condition or disease state. The intent of DTC advertising is to generate an emotional response from the viewer, such as fear or concern, believing upon research that the viewer will then question as to whether they need to seek treatment for what may be an unconfirmed medical condition. The most interesting ones are for erectile dysfunction (ED) during primetime TV, with the real possibility of children watching. Further surreal is that these particular commercials seem to have ED sufferers portrayed as those who could probably run marathons, which is not realistic from a clinical perspective.</p>
<p>DTC advertising is also a catalyst for and similar to disease mongering. Disease mongering is the creation of what some believe to be medical flaws. It is illustrated by the drug companies through exaggeration and embellishments via various media sources as an avenue for propaganda — often seen with DTC advertising. Though the flaws may not be medical, the corporate creation of these questionable human ailments that do not require treatment, possibly, may be an attempt to develop a particular medical condition to acquire profit.</p>
<p>One of my favorite DTCs is the new indication for the use of an anti-depressant for a social disorder. This used to be called introversion, a term created by Dr. Carl Yung. It is a personality trait, not a medical disease. There are other questionable medical conditions claimed in the contents of DTC commercials, as the creators wish to grow the market for a particular, and possibly fictional, disease state. Then there is baldness treatments being advertised, as another example. Lifestyle meds are not treatment meds for illnesses, and should not be portrayed as such.</p>
<p>Also, DTC ads normally discuss a single treatment option when likely several treatment options exist for authentic medical disorders. This should be left to the discretion of the physician, as they assess your health, not your TV or another media source. That’s why most of the world does not conduct DTC advertising, with the exception of America and New Zealand.</p>
<p>Finally, DTC advertising and its ability to influence viewers to make their own assessment instead of a medical professionals remains largely unregulated, yet apparently effective for the DTC creators. People are prone to believe what they see and hear, regardless of whether or not it is actually true. After viewing a DTC ad, many seek out a doctor visit and request whatever product that was advertised, which makes the doctor’s situation quite cumbersome. So the doctor and patient relationship is altered in a negative fashion since most DTC advertised drugs require a prescription.</p>
<p>Medical information and claims of suggested health ailments should come from those in the medical field instead of the corporate world. Perhaps this will save some of our over-prescribing habits, which will benefit all of us in the long term. And the health care system can regain control of its purpose, which is far from financial prosperity.</p>
<p>Men of ill judgment oft ignore the good that lies within their hands till they have lost it.<br />
— Sophocles</p>
<p>Dan Abshear<br />
Author&#8217;s note:  what has been written is based upon information and belief.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Prescription  Project</title>
		<link>http://postscript.communitycatalyst.org/?p=198&#038;cpage=1#comment-1024</link>
		<dc:creator>Prescription  Project</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:10:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prescriptionproject.org/blog/?p=198#comment-1024</guid>
		<description>We noticed that Integrity in Science Watch got a different story from EthicAd executive director Michael Shaw, who told us last week that &quot;EthicAd receives no funding from any company and is supported &#039;mostly by contributions of individual academics.&#039;&quot; 
http://prescriptionproject.org/blog/?p=194

But from today&#039;s Integrity in Science Watch: 

In an interview with Integrity in Science Watch, Shaw admitted his firm and other members of EthicAd’s board underwrite the group’s expenses, which enables it to donate its services to the FDA. “All members do work for industry; if not all, almost all,” Shaw said.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We noticed that Integrity in Science Watch got a different story from EthicAd executive director Michael Shaw, who told us last week that &#8220;EthicAd receives no funding from any company and is supported &#8216;mostly by contributions of individual academics.&#8217;&#8221;<br />
<a href="http://prescriptionproject.org/blog/?p=194" rel="nofollow">http://prescriptionproject.org/blog/?p=194</a></p>
<p>But from today&#8217;s Integrity in Science Watch: </p>
<p>In an interview with Integrity in Science Watch, Shaw admitted his firm and other members of EthicAd’s board underwrite the group’s expenses, which enables it to donate its services to the FDA. “All members do work for industry; if not all, almost all,” Shaw said.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
