FDA orders drug ads to conceal medical information

[Guest guest]

(which means scientific information will be reserved for doctors only)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/02/04/drug.ads.ap/index.html

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government wants ads for prescription drugs to

begin bearing lists of side effects that are easier to read and

understand.

 

The Food and Drug Administration advised manufacturers Wednesday to

stop using those lines of warnings in tiny print -- usually written

in doctors' jargon -- that often appear at the bottom or next page of

most drug ads in newspapers and magazines.

 

Patients do not read the lengthy warnings, the FDA said, and when

they try, the guidance is not understood.

 

" This may be a case where less is more in terms of consumer

understanding, " said the FDA's commissioner, Mark McClellan.

 

Federal regulations require that the $2.8 billion worth of direct-to-

consumer drug advertising be truthful and present fair information

about a drug's risks as well as its benefits.

 

That is why television ads generally have a narrator listing side

effects at the end. For print ads, companies usually fulfill that

obligation by putting a drug's professional label on the back of the

ad; this page is full of tiny print written for doctors, not

consumers.

 

The FDA's new guidelines make clear that drug manufacturers should

find a more consumer-friendly way to present the risk information. At

the very least, companies should:

 

use laymen's terms, not medical jargon in their ads. For example, a

drug maker should not say a drug is " contraindicated " for certain

patients, but say instead, " do not use. "

 

use bigger type. Some of today's ad warnings require a magnifying

glass to read.

 

put the most common risks and the most potentially lifesaving

information first.

 

Instead of making readers turn the page to find the warnings, the

guidelines suggest that drug makers present the warnings in the ad.

 

McClellan noted that companies probably will save advertising dollars

because manufacturers will make drug ads smaller.

 

But the change drew fire from critics. It comes just a week after

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, disclosed that FDA warnings ordering

misleading ads to be pulled have dropped by 75 percent since the late

1990s.

 

" The new guidance misses the crux of the problem, which is FDA's

abysmal failure to take strong action against the false and

misleading claims in current (direct-to-consumer) ads, " Waxman said.

 

" The example the FDA gives opens the door to abuse: FDA says that

it's OK for drug companies to replace a consumer warning that says a

drug may cause 'acute liver failure' with a warning that the

drug 'can affect your liver function, " ' he added. " That's consumer-

misleading, not consumer-friendly. "

 

McClellan said the guidelines are important because they make it more

clear what " what is and isn't out of bounds, " so his agency can focus

on egregious violations instead of manufacturers that just did not

understand the rules.

 

But even some drug makers had a lukewarm reaction.

 

Pfizer Inc., a leader in consumer-directed ads, already has moved

away from technical jargon in the warnings on some of its ads. But

Pfizer Vice President Robert Clark would not say if the company would

make the other switches -- which the FDA has recommended but not

ordered -- until it completed its own evaluation of whether they

would improve consumer understanding.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

---

hi

that is exactly what The Union of Concerned Scientists have been

saying for years " suppression of scientific data "

Go to www.fas.org and read the jacobson pdf " safeguarding national

security thru release of public environmental information "

dont know bout yall but I used to be a shroom fed BS and kept in

the dark by our very own Employees " the government "

I say get a Rope and lets hang them but

most people will live their whole lives in FEAR

too fearful to ever take control of the most ungrateful employees

the world has ever seen!!!

fearful puny hu-mans!!

once you have no more FEar of them what can they do to

you " nothing " the ungrateful empolyees will then become the fearful

WAke Up!! reverse your circumstances!!

karl theis

NO FEAR

DOGS attack when they sense FEAR and those that run our government

are DOGS

 

In , " M.E. " <SpokaneRealtor@h...>

wrote:

> (which means scientific information will be reserved for doctors

only)

>

> http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/02/04/drug.ads.ap/index.html

>

> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government wants ads for prescription drugs

to

> begin bearing lists of side effects that are easier to read and

> understand.

>

> The Food and Drug Administration advised manufacturers Wednesday

to

> stop using those lines of warnings in tiny print -- usually

written

> in doctors' jargon -- that often appear at the bottom or next page

of

> most drug ads in newspapers and magazines.

>

> Patients do not read the lengthy warnings, the FDA said, and when

> they try, the guidance is not understood.

>

> " This may be a case where less is more in terms of consumer

> understanding, " said the FDA's commissioner, Mark McClellan.

>

> Federal regulations require that the $2.8 billion worth of direct-

to-

> consumer drug advertising be truthful and present fair information

> about a drug's risks as well as its benefits.

>

> That is why television ads generally have a narrator listing side

> effects at the end. For print ads, companies usually fulfill that

> obligation by putting a drug's professional label on the back of

the

> ad; this page is full of tiny print written for doctors, not

> consumers.

>

> The FDA's new guidelines make clear that drug manufacturers should

> find a more consumer-friendly way to present the risk information.

At

> the very least, companies should:

>

> use laymen's terms, not medical jargon in their ads. For example,

a

> drug maker should not say a drug is " contraindicated " for certain

> patients, but say instead, " do not use. "

>

> use bigger type. Some of today's ad warnings require a magnifying

> glass to read.

>

> put the most common risks and the most potentially lifesaving

> information first.

>

> Instead of making readers turn the page to find the warnings, the

> guidelines suggest that drug makers present the warnings in the ad.

>

> McClellan noted that companies probably will save advertising

dollars

> because manufacturers will make drug ads smaller.

>

> But the change drew fire from critics. It comes just a week after

> Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, disclosed that FDA warnings

ordering

> misleading ads to be pulled have dropped by 75 percent since the

late

> 1990s.

>

> " The new guidance misses the crux of the problem, which is FDA's

> abysmal failure to take strong action against the false and

> misleading claims in current (direct-to-consumer) ads, " Waxman

said.

>

> " The example the FDA gives opens the door to abuse: FDA says that

> it's OK for drug companies to replace a consumer warning that says

a

> drug may cause 'acute liver failure' with a warning that the

> drug 'can affect your liver function, " ' he added. " That's consumer-

> misleading, not consumer-friendly. "

>

> McClellan said the guidelines are important because they make it

more

> clear what " what is and isn't out of bounds, " so his agency can

focus

> on egregious violations instead of manufacturers that just did not

> understand the rules.

>

> But even some drug makers had a lukewarm reaction.

>

> Pfizer Inc., a leader in consumer-directed ads, already has moved

> away from technical jargon in the warnings on some of its ads. But

> Pfizer Vice President Robert Clark would not say if the company

would

> make the other switches -- which the FDA has recommended but not

> ordered -- until it completed its own evaluation of whether they

> would improve consumer understanding.

>

>

>

>