[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report

CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene

NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!


Health
See other Health Articles

Title: TV Drug Ads: The Whole Truth?
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 17, 2013
Author: staff
Post Date: 2013-09-17 04:03:05 by Tatarewicz
Ping List: *The Freedom4um Cook Book*     Subscribe to *The Freedom4um Cook Book*
Keywords: None
Views: 59
Comments: 2

ScienceDaily:

Sep. 16, 2013 — Consumers should be wary when watching those advertisements for pharmaceuticals on the nightly TV news, as six out of 10 claims could potentially mislead the viewer, say researchers in an article published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

Researchers Adrienne E. Faerber of The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice and David H. Kreling of The University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Pharmacy found that potentially misleading claims are prevalent throughout consumer-targeted prescription and non-prescription drug advertisements on television.

Over the past 15 years, researchers and policymakers have debated whether drug advertising informs consumers about new drugs, or persuades consumers to take medicines that they may not need. "Healthcare consumers need unrestricted access to high-quality information about health," said Faerber of The Dartmouth Institute, "but these TV drug ads had misleading statements that omitted or exaggerated information. These results conflict with arguments that drug ads are helping inform consumers."

Pharmaceutical companies spent $4.8 billion in 2009, surpassing consumer promotion for nonprescription products of $3 billion that year, the researchers said.

Content for this study came from the Vanderbilt TV News Archive, an indexed archive of recordings of the nightly news broadcasts (the news and commercial segments) on ABC, CBS, and NBC since 1968 and on CNN since 1992. Researchers viewed advertisements in the 6:30𔃅 pm EST period because the nightly news is a desirable time slot for drug advertisers because of the older audience that watches the nightly news.

The researchers reviewed 168 TV advertisements for prescription and over-the-counter drugs aired between 2008 and 2010, and identified statements that were strongly emphasized in the ad. A team of trained analysts then classified those claims as being truthful, potentially misleading or false.

They found that false claims, which are factually false or unsubstantiated, were rare, with only 1 in 10 claims false. False advertising is illegal and can lead to criminal and civil penalties.

Most claims were potentially misleading -- 6 in 10 claims left out important information, exaggerated information, provided opinions, or made meaningless associations with lifestyles, the researchers said.

False or potentially misleading claims may be more frequent in over-the-counter drug ads than ads for prescription drugs -- 6 of 10 claims in prescription drug ads were misleading or false, while 8 of 10 claims in OTC drug ads were misleading or false.

The Food and Drug Administration oversees prescription drug advertising while the Federal Trade Commission oversees advertising for nonprescription drugs.

The FDA and FTC have different definitions of false and misleading claims. For example, the FDA interpretation says prescription drug advertising must include information about the harms of the drug, but information on harms is left out of most OTC drug ads.

The researchers said there were some limitations in the study method: the sample was drawn from a 30-minute period of the TV broadcast day on four major networks, and does not represent all ads on TV. Also, they only analyzed what they determined as the most-emphasized claim in each advertisement and the coders need to interpret the meaning of claims to facilitate analysis, which did introduce subjectivity.

"Healthcare consumers need unrestricted access to high-quality information about health, "said Faerber of The Dartmouth Institute. "Consumers may see up to 30 hours of television drug advertising each year, while only spending 15 to 20 minutes, on average, at each visit with their primary care physician. Subscribe to *The Freedom4um Cook Book*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)

There was a LOT of legal argument back and forth when the advertisement of 'ethicals' (prescription medicines) direct to the public via magazines and TV was first proposed about 25 years ago. There were many complicating factors.

One consideration, at that time (before the advertising), was that both doctors and patients were often ignorant of the availability of new treatments. The public simply wasn't being told anything directly, and even very costly promotions to doctors to make them aware of new medications seemed to be wasted.

An additional consideration was Pharma's return on investment. Patent law limited the inventing pharmaceutical manufacturer's exclusivity to just 19 years - usually with several of those years completely unrewarded while getting FDA approval to market the new medicine - so any sluggishness in the medical profession's use of the new medicine meant that the real sales didn't take off until the patent was expiring or expired, so the original manufacturer didn't get a gratifying return on the cost of development. Advertising direct to the public could prompt customer pressure that would lead to sales.

Apart from that, there was simply the substantial risk that new and useful medicines would simply not get used. Doctors might hardly be aware that a new medicine was available, and simply keep prescribing the same old same old, and patients would never get the benefit of new developments.

THe advertising in magazines does quite a bit to subsidize the print media, which counts for something in this digital age. Almost invariable a page of an ad for a new medicine with a pretty picture and encouraging text is followed by at least one page of tight technical text of the ins and outs of the medicine including warnings. So an ad for a prescription medicine means the magazine sells at least TWO pages for one ad.

Even before ethicals could be advertised to the public, patent medicines and OTC (Over The Counter) pills could be advertised. These non-prescription products seldom cured anything, and frequently accomplished Very Little -- but they were being heavily advertised, frequently with inflated and misleading claims, while effective Real Medicines were kept in obscurity from the public.

Shoonra  posted on  2013-09-18   0:14:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Shoonra (#1)

Even before ethicals could be advertised to the public, patent medicines and OTC (Over The Counter) pills could be advertised. These non-prescription products seldom cured anything, and frequently accomplished Very Little -- but they were being heavily advertised, frequently with inflated and misleading claims, while effective Real Medicines were kept in obscurity from the public.

Thus we get such beneficial treatments as:

Aspartame (Thank You Donald, the sociopath, Rumsfeld) with over 60 known toxic side effects because it breaks down into Methanol at just above room temperature and about ten degrees below normal body temperature.

Prozac and all of the other anti-depressants which appear over and over again in suicides and mass murders. The wonders of marketing chemistry.

Vioxx

Statin Drugs which cause heart failure, and a host of other adverse and life threatening side-effects, while claiming to be a treatment for a problem not proven to be a cause and all based on junk science and Pharmaceutical Marketing Departments.

And one could go on and on.

Of course the FDA is busy protecting us from Raw Milk, or Cheese, and keeps trying to outlaw vitamins through such public spirited individuals as DICK Durbin.

And don't forget the Vaccines of dubious efficacy, but highly profitable, with mercury and other toxins injected directly into your blood stream. Got Influenza?

Please play the "Hurdy Gurdy" elsewhere. Maybe you'll find a few suckers for the Snake Oil.

"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha

Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")

Original_Intent  posted on  2013-09-18   2:20:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]