Actually I can. You know how drug advertisements look in magazines—it can be like 3 pages of text (aka “product disclosure”) that runs on and on and interrupts whatever you’re reading. Heaven help you if you’re reading Reader’s Digest where 3 pages suddenly becomes 5 due to the smaller format. And if you do take a moment to glance at the ad, you’ve got to be thinking that something that takes that much explaining maybe shouldn’t be taken at all. Be that as it may, enter the brave new world of online advertising…
Well, there’s just no room online to be putting all that junk. Those tightly designed banner ads would become full-page ads with all the disclosure notices included and I guarantee that after coming face to face with a few “impressions” of those, you’ll never click on that website again.
And don’t the drug companies know it. But they need to be pushing their wares online—that’s where all the “growth” is these days. So now, get this—the drug industry’s big guys like Eli Lilly and Pfizer are turning to the FDA for guidance on how to push their goods online. Why? The current FDA guidelines for advertising in traditional print media (magazines, newspapers) or t.v. require all that disclosure information is shown prominently. But there aren’t really any guidelines set for new media—so everyone’s playing by the rules of traditional media, and clearly that’s not good.
Not good for who? Big pharma, but also the bigger online media companies. See the online Read the rest of this entry »
What’s it going to take to make unscrupulous drug companies come clean? Now we have another drug scandal—this time it’s Seroquel. In 1997 Seroquel was approved by the FDA and at the same time, Study 15 showed that weight gain and diabetes were seen in study patients. But in its infinite wisdom, the FDA said it does not have the authority to place such studies in the public domain; instead the agency deemed the drug “safe and effective”. It’s mind-boggling how a drug company can manipulate a government agency and control publicly available research about their products.
Pharmaceutical companies are supposed to announce publicly when a clinical trial is underway and its goals, but according to a study by the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, many tests are conducted without this disclosure and selective results—hiding the results of negative trials and only publishing studies that show their products in a positive light—is widespread. Read the rest of this entry »
Just when, did the medical community begin serving the pharmaceutical industry—instead of the other way around?
The recent fine levied against Pfizer for various marketing sins involving a handful of prescription drugs may well be the largest ($2.3 billion), and most comprehensive (Pfizer was required to sign an agreement of conduct that has been described as being the most stringent in history)—but it is by no means the first such case. Pharmaceutical companies have for years been bending the rules and circumventing regulations by promoting drugs off label (that’s illegal), and other unsavory activities, all in the quest for the mighty greenback.
Doctors have been lavished with gifts in exchange for prescribing someone’s drug. They accept ‘consulting fees’ from pharmaceuticals in exchange for lecturing, in their own words mind you, on the benefits of a particular drug. It’s all perfectly legal, but it shouldn’t be.
And that’s one of the many wrongs percolating in a health care system that’s severely broken and in need of overhaul. Read the rest of this entry »