<OT> Who's the pusher?

[Guest guest]

This is an article in a newsletter that I subscribe to. It's by W. C. ,

MD. He is an unpolitically correct fellow, and I enjoy reading his articles.

Wanted to share this one with you guys. It's oh so true! I wonder how much the

price of drugs could be reduced without the $1.6 billion spent on television ads

(not total drug marketing dollars JUST TV). So many people struggle to pay for

needed medications, and this just makes me feel so discouraged.

Who's the pusher?

Daily Dose

February 25, 2003

**************************************************************

When they say TV is " like a drug, " they're not kidding...

An Associated Press article from this past year revealed

that in just four years, between 1996 and 2000, the

pharmaceutical industry increased spending on consumer-

targeted TV advertising by a whopping 700%, from $220 million

to $1.6 billion.

Why? Because drug companies have finally figured out that

marketing their products directly to you is a more effective

use of their ad budgets than continuing to court

conventional doctors who already believe in the benefits of

prescription drugs.

Business-wise, this makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Why

should the major drug makers " preach to the choir " when they

can harness the power of the boob tube to drive tens of

thousands of potential new addicts-er, I mean users-flocking

to their doctors to ask for their products BY NAME. The

irony here is almost poetic: Drug companies using our

dependence on TV to fuel our dependence on prescription

medications...

Now, don't misunderstand me-the kind, benevolent

pharmaceuticals giants still spend tens of millions of

dollars " educating " mainstream doctors about their helpful,

harmless and reasonably priced patent medicines. It's just

that now they've created a whole new sphere of demand on the

consumer side of the fence. What's wrong with that, you ask?

Plenty. For starters, the ads show only the benefits of the

drugs, not the downsides-and the vague, brief list of

possible side effects actually drives the sale as it

invariably concludes with some phrase like " Ask your doctor

for more details... "

What's worse, a lot of these ads-especially the ones for

allergies, joint pain and indigestion relief-actually

convince people they're sick by listing symptoms that just

about anyone can have on any given day. I mean, who among us

doesn't deal with a little stiffness, heartburn or

congestion once in a while? Does that automatically mean

we're sick and we need drugs right away?

These ads create the tendency for people to diagnose

themselves with illnesses and identify prescription

solutions in their own minds long before any doctor has

examined them. These preconceived notions can make the doc's

job harder-if he isn't already laboring under the same

notions. Sad to say, most conventional doctors are, thanks

to the " education " efforts paid for by drug companies.

These are just a few of the reasons why consumer-targeted TV

ads for patent drugs compromise the very foundations of the

medical process, a process that's supposed to be sacred,

objective, and progressive-not commercial. In my opinion,

drug companies shouldn't be allowed to market their products

directly to consumers at all, but especially on television.

It's simply too powerful a medium, and it blinds people to

safe, effective alternatives they might have considered

otherwise.

And given my typical anti-government stance (especially when

it comes to drugs, natural cures and the FDA's double-

standard in regulatory practices), you'll probably fall over

backward when I say this, but...THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW!

**************************************************************