Guest guest Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 When Advertizing KillsAsk your doctor if you blowing up your *#*%$! TV is right for you! Advertising has been called “legalized lying” by both H.G. Wells and Mark Twain. from: http://www.mnwelldir.org:80/nw_current.htm Vilhjalmur Stefansson asks, “What is the difference between unethical and ethical advertising? Unethical advertising uses falsehoods to deceive the public; ethical advertising uses truth to deceive the public.” Legalized lying has had a colorful history in America, and the most colorful of all products ever advertized are drugs, nostrums, and patent medicines, or as we lovingly know them today: Pharmaceuticals. Prior to the 20th Century, before radio and television advertising, patent medicines were advertised in newspapers, magazines, in catalogs (such as Sears), on billboards, on posters in stores, on shelves of stores, in hand outs, and hawked on the streets (as seen in many popular westerns). These medicines promised fabulous cures for every ailment: scrofula, kidney disease, balding and falling hair, dyspepsia, worms, catarrh, and nerve disorders. These were times in which there was little access to physicians or good health information, and prescription medicines were much more expensive than any of these that were sold over the counter or off the wagon. “The only reason I made a commercial for American Express was to pay for my American Express bill.” Peter Ustinov Most contained a lot of alcohol, and many were mixed with opiates, the wonder drug of the 19th century. Laudanum was a favorite of the time. An article out of the 1972 Penthouse called “Grandma Was a Junkie” describes the machinations of the author’s grandmother around the turn of the century in her quest to satisfy her addiction to laudanum. Local pharmacies knew she was addicted and refused to supply her with it, so she was forced to go to different sections of the town to get her fix. Many of these favorites of yesteryear are illegal today or prescribed minimally: Chloral hydrate — a sedative and hypnotic drug, often slipped into an alcoholic drink to make a “Mickey Finn” Paregoric — a camphorated tincture of opium Heroin — another opiate marketed from 1898 to 1910 as a “non additive” cough medicine for children. Bayer marketed heroin as a cure for morphine addiction. Codeine — first isolated in 1830, an opiate that was marketed in cold syrups right up till recently, and are still mixed with acetaminophen as a pain killer, even though studies show that codeine is practically worthless. Morphine — first isolated in 1804 in Germany, its popularity never caught on till the invention of the hypodermic needle in 1853. It was used as a cure for opium and alcohol addiction until we figured out that it was much more addictive than both of them. Morphine is carried by soldiers on maneuvers in an “autoinjector.” Laudanum — an alcoholic tincture of opium that is still available by prescription for extreme diarrhea that hasn’t responded to therapy. Famous fans of Laudanum are John Keats, Lewis Carroll, Charles Dickens, Edgar Allan Poe, Mary Todd Lincoln, Meriwether Lewis, and George Washington. Many medicines contained dangerous chemicals. We've written about the Rockefellers discovering oil; how they quickly bottled it and marketed it as a cancer cure. It wasn’t until a series of articles published in Collier’s Weekly called “The Great American Fraud” that the American public got a wakeup call to what they’d been putting in their bodies. Congress was pressed into action and, viola, out popped the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. “It is a most extraordinary thing, but I never read a patent medicine advertisement without being impelled to the conclusion that I am suffering from the particular disease therein dealt with in its most virulent form.” Jerome K Jerome Today the FTC, Federal Trade Commission handles advertising while the FDA handles specifically food, supplement, herbal, and drug advertizing. The FTC will oftentimes get into the picture too for these listed products. There has been legislation in recent years, calling for side effects to be listed for print, radio, and television advertising, but still consumer groups fight on because these billion dollar drug companies still get away with… well… murder. We’ve updated our article on Chronic Therapy adding Anthocyanins LINK which are water-soluble flavonoids found in fruits and vegetables that inhibit the inflammatory COX 1 and 2 enzymes. Cherries (and chokecherries) are among the most potent fruits in this category. Even though there are literally hundreds of studies that show cherries (especially the tart ones) to help fight the inflammation of arthritis, the FDA has come down hard on the cherry industry not allowing them to advertize this feature. On the OTHER hand, Honey/Nut Cheerios and other breakfast cereals with way too much sugar (the Honey/Nut Cheerios contains three types of sugar) and way too many carbs get to advertise heavily how heart healthy they are. Because studies show that eating oat fiber can lower cholesterol levels, General Mills has launched huge promotional campaigns that make ridiculously outrageous health claims. Legal Lie: You need a car that is fun to drive, and that car is shown on the open road, all alone, buzzing along, taking curves, speeding up on the straightaways. The Reality: You commute to work in traffic, you commute home in traffic, and whenever you get out on the open road, there’s a truck in front of you that is impossible to pass on that beautiful, scenic, curvy road. Since when do oats, processed till there is hardly anything left resembling an oats, coated in sugar, with artificial flavors and artificial colors get to advertise that they’ll lower your cholesterol better than aged garlic. And if aged garlic (or organic whole foods) attempted to advertise health benefits, FDA storm troopers would be called out while their expensive attorneys piled up lists of charges. This Just In: Why the FDA doesn't want you to know about this painkiller Did you know that eating 20 cherries has the same anti-inflammatory effect as popping aspirin or a cox-2 inhibiting drug? If not, you can blame the FDA. Several years ago, U.S. Department of Agriculture studies proved that cherries have powerful anti-inflammatory properties. When the cherry growers used the studies to promote their fruit, the FDA went on a witch hunt and told them to stop. The FDA ruled that the cherry growers could not use the evidence to make these claims. Why? Because the FDA requires food manufacturers and growers to satisfy the agency's unobtainable standard of proof before promoting health claims of their products. However, the cost is so prohibitive to do so that most companies and organizations simply can't meet the standard. But guess who can? The drug companies. The current FDA rules give the drug companies an unfair advantage in the marketplace. As a result, the cherry growers can't tell you about the anti-inflammatory properties of their cherries. But the drug makers can make claims about their drugs all day long - even though they both have the same abilities. And guess which one has killed over 20,000 people? It isn't the cherries, but the FDA isn't concerned about that. This unhindered access to the FDA has given the drug companies tremendous power. So much, in fact, that no one is willing to stand up to them - until now. Congressman, medical doctor, and presidential candidate Ron Paul recently said, "enough is enough" and is standing up to the Big Pharma bullies who run the FDA. Dr. Paul has introduced H.R. 2117 (the Health Freedom Protection Act) into the House. It will effectively stop the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the health benefits of dietary supplements and other foods. The goal of H.R. 2117 is to put an end to the federal bureaucrats' meddling with your right to choose healthy alternatives over harmful and deadly drugs. Dr. Paul believes the FDA should not prevent Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. Dr. Paul's bill will put the burden of proof where it belongs, on the FDA/FTC when it comes to determining if an ad is false or misleading. This makes sense, as you're always innocent until proven guilty in this country. But the FDA considers you guilty until you can bribe your way into innocence. Big Pharma has the FDA firmly in pocket. Censoring vital information, as it did with the cherry growers, is their only way to stay in business! Perhaps bill H.R. 2117 can get enough traction to stick if enough of us stand firmly behind it. I urge you to contact your elected officials to get HR 2117 moving. It is currently stuck in committee and it needs your help. The easiest way to do that is to visit the website www.house.gov/writerep/. Once you're at the site, simply follow the instructions on the screen and you can send your representatives a note on this very important bill. Please do so today! Your health depends on it. Yours for better health and medical freedom, Robert Jay Rowen, MD Ref: LewRockwell.com May 16, 2007. Get Dr Rowen's newsletter at: http://www.secondopinionnewsletter.com Conclusion? The FDA allows blatant false advertising for huge corporations but disallows this same advertising for small companies making healthy food and supplements. Will Congress step in and investigate? Of course! False and misleading advertising irks our congress. Just recently, Congress formed a committee to investigate misleading advertising in the drug industry. Horray for the little guy! Well, not really. Congress wanted to know if Dr Robert Jarvik (a medical doctor who is not licensed to practice medicine and does not specialize in cardiology, but did invent an artificial heart) actually knows how to row a boat. Apparently the ad agency hired a stunt double for the sculling scenes. Dr Jarvik is not an outdoorsman. Boy did he piss off Congress. Sadly, congress forgot to investigate if Lipitor actually saves lives (no, it does not significantly lowered heart attack rates) or if it does more damage to the human body (every cell in your body needs cholesterol) by stopping the body’s production of CoQ10 (which the heart DOES need). The list of side effects is remarkable. Congress did NOT investigate if cholesterol actually causes heart disease. Congress did not discover that your overall cholesterol numbers have no connection to your chances of heart attack or stroke, but that recent studies have shown conclusively that your chances of having a heart attack or stroke decrease as the ratio of HDL to LDL goes up. The more HDL (good cholesterol), the better your chances of a heart disease free life. Congress did not investigate that statin drugs can cause heart failure, memory problems, and cancers. Congress did not investigate that cholesterol lowering drugs lower both good and bad cholesterol. Congress did not investigate that there is no such thing as bad cholesterol. Congress did not discover that the so called bad cholesterol’s job is to patch arteries that have injuries from cardiovascular disease. Nor did they discover that good cholesterol should be called Preventive Cholesterol while so-called bad cholesterol should be called Reparative Cholesterol (it’s job is to repair a problem caused by heart disease; it does not cause heart disease). Congress investigated Dr Robert Jarvik’s ability to row a boat. The stunt double wrote an article that was subtitled: “My Brief Career as a Drug Pusher.” Jarvik contracted to fake, or make, these commercials for over a million dollars. With the pharm industry under close scrutiny to never again use a stunt double when advertising questionable drugs, Merck/Shering pulled their latest television advertising on Zetia and Vytorin. Some advertising industry sources were shocked because on careful examination of their ads, they found that no stunt doubles were used. Apparently, Zetia and Vytorin ads were dropped BECASE THEY WILL KILL YOU. Oh? The print ads continued a bit longer, but are now pulled. Zetia will lower your cholesterol, but does nothing to stop it from gathering on your arteries. In fact, it seemed to increase the amount of cholesterol found on your arteries, thus, it can be concluded that Zetia caused heart disease. Zetia, however, did not kill as many people as Vioxx. Vioxx is now not allowed to advertise, but doctors can still prescribe it. Vioxx is no longer advertised for the same reason that no prescription drug should be advertised: patients will ask for it and it will be over prescribed. Vioxx had been created to treat inflammation in people at risk for gastro-intestinal issues while using things like aspirin. You would think that it would have been prescribed to only patients with a high risk of GI problems. However, it is estimated that nearly 90% of of Vioxx users did not need the drug. Just over 10% of those patients prescribed Vioxx needed the drug. Why were so many people over prescribed this drug? Vioxx was heavily advertised. Heavy advertising means hefty sales. Patients go to their doctors and ask for Vioxx. Doctors prescribe Vioxx because of perks from drug companies for prescribing their drugs. Suddenly we have nearly half a million people on Vioxx, only 10 - 12% actually need it and a few years later we find that 139,000 people have been injured by Vioxx. http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/6782229/ and over 60,000 dead from heart attacks. To end this discussion, I’d like to quote one of my favorite PBS programs that is no longer on the air, NOW: It is hardly a secret that direct-to-consumer drug advertising is big business. In December 2004 the New York Times reported that a recent study by advertising revenue tracker TNS Media Intelligence/CMR found that prescription medicine ads aired during ABC, CBS and NBC's nightly news accounted for nearly 29 percent, or $110 million, of all ad revenue from January through September of 2004. Vioxx's makers had spent $78 million on direct-to-consumer ads last year and other products have tallies just as high. Call your representatives, ask them how much money s/he received from the Pharmaceutical Industry, and then ask him/her if that amount of money would affect whether s/he votes to outlaw prescription drug advertising. Over and over and over it has been demonstrated that television advertising of prescription drugs leads to overprescribing these drugs. Here are a few free numbers to the DC offices (that we’ve checked out): 800-828-0498, 800-614-2803 and 877-851-6437. Just ask for your representative’s office. Legal Lie: Aspirin will protect you from a heart attack. The Reality: Magnesium, garlic, vitamin C, and fish oils will protect you from a heart attack. Aspirin will increase your chances of hemorrhagic stroke some 40%. http://www.grisoft.com Anti-Virus Scanned this message Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 At 01:11 AM 4/1/2008, you wrote: That statement from Stefansson about advertising, is probably the best definition I've heard yet. “What is the difference between unethical and ethical advertising? Unethical advertising uses falsehoods to deceive the public; ethical advertising uses truth to deceive the public.” But it's not confined to the U.S. - it's pretty much world-wide. I think those adverts for Gardasil they have over here, where they have a mother and usually a teenage daughter, and show the mother saying, " and she will be one less, " or something to that effect. Of course, implying her daughter won't have to worry about cervical cancer. On the face of it, they are very persuasive, I think. Everytime I see one now, I wonder what those mothers and/or daughters will say, if they find out the " cure " for cervical cancer also caused them to be infertile. But, in all fairness, I have to say that the makers and sellers of herbs, vitamins and minerals don't tell you some of the potentially dangerous effects, or side effects some of that stuff has either. It's not only the drug people that are guilty of that. In fact, if you think about it, there is more information given to the public (not counting if you search stuff out) by most pharmacies when you get whatever prescription than there is about natural or holistic methods. Any time I get a prescription filled, there is always a computer generated piece of paper I get with it, that not only explains what the drug is supposed to do, but also the most common side effects. Of late, I have been seeing more ads on TV for various drugs, that do mention some of the scary side effects. I love it when they're something (don't remember what right now) for men, and the ad says something like, " if you're pregnant, or WANT to get pregnant, don't handle or touch this drug!! " Yeah, I'd so like to have something that can cause potential birth defects in my house - even if I am past the point of child bearing......... But, your average person who runs out and gets some vitamin C, for example, doesn't know you can get the runs if you take too much. Or, that your stomach may not be able to tolerate it. Or, that you may have other GI distress, or feel nauseous. Nowhere does it tell you too much Vit. C can also put you at risk for Kidney stones, etc. I agree about the information about the cherries but, everyone can not tolerate them. Especially if they eat a lot at one time.(I KNOW it said 20, but how often do people really follow the directions?) This quote from a discussion about eating cherries and a couple of people said it made their stomach " feel funny. " " MANY people react to too many cherries with gas, diarrhea and tummy rumblings. However, if you are sensitive to aspirin which contains saliscylic acid, you may also react to any fruit which contains a lot of natural saliscylates, such as plums, peaches, cherries, grapes and apricots, as well as almonds which are high in natural saliscylates. I know this is not celiac/gluten intolerance related, but many celiacs also have other food allergies (IgE) or intolerances (IgG). I plan to take the ELISA blood test panel to rule out what other foods might cause my continuing symptoms. I suspect the natural saliscylates fruits, because I can't tolerate ANYTHING with aspirin. BURDEE " ............. Hope she or he didn't mind if I lifted his/her statement from http://www.glutenfreeforum.com/lofiversion/index.php/t21367.html Anyway, my point is, that it's not just one sector that is less than forthcoming with information on what they sell.........I guess the big difference, is the drugs have the FDA sanction........... Lynn When Advertizing Kills Ask your doctor if you blowing up your *#*%$! TV is right for you! Advertising has been called “legalized lying” by both H.G. Wells and Mark Twain. from: http://www.mnwelldir.org:80/nw_current.htm Vilhjalmur Stefansson asks, “What is the difference between unethical and ethical advertising? Unethical advertising uses falsehoods to deceive the public; ethical advertising uses truth to deceive the public.” Legalized lying has had a colorful history in America, and the most colorful of all products ever advertized are drugs, nostrums, and patent medicines, or as we lovingly know them today: Pharmaceuticals. Prior to the 20th Century, before radio and television advertising, patent medicines were advertised in newspapers, magazines, in catalogs (such as Sears), on billboards, on posters in stores, on shelves of stores, in hand outs, and hawked on the streets (as seen in many popular westerns). These medicines promised fabulous cures for every ailment: scrofula, kidney disease, balding and falling hair, dyspepsia, worms, catarrh, and nerve disorders. These were times in which there was little access to physicians or good health information, and prescription medicines were much more expensive than any of these that were sold over the counter or off the wagon. “The only reason I made a commercial for American Express was to pay for my American Express bill.” Peter Ustinov Most contained a lot of alcohol, and many were mixed with opiates, the wonder drug of the 19th century. Laudanum was a favorite of the time. An article out of the 1972 Penthouse called “Grandma Was a Junkie” describes the machinations of the author’s grandmother around the turn of the century in her quest to satisfy her addiction to laudanum. Local pharmacies knew she was addicted and refused to supply her with it, so she was forced to go to different sections of the town to get her fix. Many of these favorites of yesteryear are illegal today or prescribed minimally: Chloral hydrate — a sedative and hypnotic drug, often slipped into an alcoholic drink to make a “Mickey Finn” Paregoric — a camphorated tincture of opium Heroin — another opiate marketed from 1898 to 1910 as a “non additive” cough medicine for children. Bayer marketed heroin as a cure for morphine addiction. Codeine — first isolated in 1830, an opiate that was marketed in cold syrups right up till recently, and are still mixed with acetaminophen as a pain killer, even though studies show that codeine is practically worthless. Morphine — first isolated in 1804 in Germany, its popularity never caught on till the invention of the hypodermic needle in 1853. It was used as a cure for opium and alcohol addiction until we figured out that it was much more addictive than both of them. Morphine is carried by soldiers on maneuvers in an “autoinjector.” Laudanum — an alcoholic tincture of opium that is still available by prescription for extreme diarrhea that hasn’t responded to therapy. Famous fans of Laudanum are John Keats, Lewis Carroll, Charles Dickens, Edgar Allan Poe, Mary Todd Lincoln, Meriwether Lewis, and George Washington. Many medicines contained dangerous chemicals. We've written about the Rockefellers discovering oil; how they quickly bottled it and marketed it as a cancer cure. It wasn’t until a series of articles published in Collier’s Weekly called “The Great American Fraud” that the American public got a wakeup call to what they’d been putting in their bodies. Congress was pressed into action and, viola, out popped the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. “It is a most extraordinary thing, but I never read a patent medicine advertisement without being impelled to the conclusion that I am suffering from the particular disease therein dealt with in its most virulent form.” Jerome K Jerome Today the FTC, Federal Trade Commission handles advertising while the FDA handles specifically food, supplement, herbal, and drug advertizing. The FTC will oftentimes get into the picture too for these listed products. There has been legislation in recent years, calling for side effects to be listed for print, radio, and television advertising, but still consumer groups fight on because these billion dollar drug companies still get away with… well… murder. We’ve updated our article on Chronic Therapy adding Anthocyanins LINK which are water-soluble flavonoids found in fruits and vegetables that inhibit the inflammatory COX 1 and 2 enzymes. Cherries (and chokecherries) are among the most potent fruits in this category. Even though there are literally hundreds of studies that show cherries (especially the tart ones) to help fight the inflammation of arthritis, the FDA has come down hard on the cherry industry not allowing them to advertize this feature. On the OTHER hand, Honey/Nut Cheerios and other breakfast cereals with way too much sugar (the Honey/Nut Cheerios contains three types of sugar) and way too many carbs get to advertise heavily how heart healthy they are. Because studies show that eating oat fiber can lower cholesterol levels, General Mills has launched huge promotional campaigns that make ridiculously outrageous health claims. Legal Lie: You need a car that is fun to drive, and that car is shown on the open road, all alone, buzzing along, taking curves, speeding up on the straightaways. The Reality: You commute to work in traffic, you commute home in traffic, and whenever you get out on the open road, there’s a truck in front of you that is impossible to pass on that beautiful, scenic, curvy road. Since when do oats, processed till there is hardly anything left resembling an oats, coated in sugar, with artificial flavors and artificial colors get to advertise that they’ll lower your cholesterol better than aged garlic. And if aged garlic (or organic whole foods) attempted to advertise health benefits, FDA storm troopers would be called out while their expensive attorneys piled up lists of charges. This Just In: Why the FDA doesn't want you to know about this painkiller Did you know that eating 20 cherries has the same anti-inflammatory effect as popping aspirin or a cox-2 inhibiting drug? If not, you can blame the FDA. Several years ago, U.S. Department of Agriculture studies proved that cherries have powerful anti-inflammatory properties. When the cherry growers used the studies to promote their fruit, the FDA went on a witch hunt and told them to stop. The FDA ruled that the cherry growers could not use the evidence to make these claims. Why? Because the FDA requires food manufacturers and growers to satisfy the agency's unobtainable standard of proof before promoting health claims of their products. However, the cost is so prohibitive to do so that most companies and organizations simply can't meet the standard. But guess who can? The drug companies. The current FDA rules give the drug companies an unfair advantage in the marketplace. As a result, the cherry growers can't tell you about the anti-inflammatory properties of their cherries. But the drug makers can make claims about their drugs all day long - even though they both have the same abilities. And guess which one has killed over 20,000 people? It isn't the cherries, but the FDA isn't concerned about that. This unhindered access to the FDA has given the drug companies tremendous power. So much, in fact, that no one is willing to stand up to them - until now. Congressman, medical doctor, and presidential candidate Ron Paul recently said, " enough is enough " and is standing up to the Big Pharma bullies who run the FDA. Dr. Paul has introduced H.R. 2117 (the Health Freedom Protection Act) into the House. It will effectively stop the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the health benefits of dietary supplements and other foods. The goal of H.R. 2117 is to put an end to the federal bureaucrats' meddling with your right to choose healthy alternatives over harmful and deadly drugs. Dr. Paul believes the FDA should not prevent Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. Dr. Paul's bill will put the burden of proof where it belongs, on the FDA/FTC when it comes to determining if an ad is false or misleading. This makes sense, as you're always innocent until proven guilty in this country. But the FDA considers you guilty until you can bribe your way into innocence. Big Pharma has the FDA firmly in pocket. Censoring vital information, as it did with the cherry growers, is their only way to stay in business! Perhaps bill H.R. 2117 can get enough traction to stick if enough of us stand firmly behind it. I urge you to contact your elected officials to get HR 2117 moving. It is currently stuck in committee and it needs your help. The easiest way to do that is to visit the website www.house.gov/writerep/. Once you're at the site, simply follow the instructions on the screen and you can send your representatives a note on this very important bill. Please do so today! Your health depends on it. Yours for better health and medical freedom, Robert Jay Rowen, MD Ref: LewRockwell.com May 16, 2007. Get Dr Rowen's newsletter at: http://www.secondopinionnewsletter.com Conclusion? The FDA allows blatant false advertising for huge corporations but disallows this same advertising for small companies making healthy food and supplements. Will Congress step in and investigate? Of course! False and misleading advertising irks our congress. Just recently, Congress formed a committee to investigate misleading advertising in the drug industry. Horray for the little guy! Well, not really. Congress wanted to know if Dr Robert Jarvik (a medical doctor who is not licensed to practice medicine and does not specialize in cardiology, but did invent an artificial heart) actually knows how to row a boat. Apparently the ad agency hired a stunt double for the sculling scenes. Dr Jarvik is not an outdoorsman. Boy did he piss off Congress. Sadly, congress forgot to investigate if Lipitor actually saves lives (no, it does not significantly lowered heart attack rates) or if it does more damage to the human body (every cell in your body needs cholesterol) by stopping the body’s production of CoQ10 (which the heart DOES need). The list of side effects is remarkable. Congress did NOT investigate if cholesterol actually causes heart disease. Congress did not discover that your overall cholesterol numbers have no connection to your chances of heart attack or stroke, but that recent studies have shown conclusively that your chances of having a heart attack or stroke decrease as the ratio of HDL to LDL goes up. The more HDL (good cholesterol), the better your chances of a heart disease free life. Congress did not investigate that statin drugs can cause heart failure, memory problems, and cancers. Congress did not investigate that cholesterol lowering drugs lower both good and bad cholesterol. Congress did not investigate that there is no such thing as bad cholesterol. Congress did not discover that the so called bad cholesterol’s job is to patch arteries that have injuries from cardiovascular disease. Nor did they discover that good cholesterol should be called Preventive Cholesterol while so-called bad cholesterol should be called Reparative Cholesterol (it’s job is to repair a problem caused by heart disease; it does not cause heart disease). Congress investigated Dr Robert Jarvik’s ability to row a boat. The stunt double wrote an article that was subtitled: “My Brief Career as a Drug Pusher.” Jarvik contracted to fake, or make, these commercials for over a million dollars. With the pharm industry under close scrutiny to never again use a stunt double when advertising questionable drugs, Merck/Shering pulled their latest television advertising on Zetia and Vytorin. Some advertising industry sources were shocked because on careful examination of their ads, they found that no stunt doubles were used. Apparently, Zetia and Vytorin ads were dropped BECASE THEY WILL KILL YOU. Oh? The print ads continued a bit longer, but are now pulled. Zetia will lower your cholesterol, but does nothing to stop it from gathering on your arteries. In fact, it seemed to increase the amount of cholesterol found on your arteries, thus, it can be concluded that Zetia caused heart disease. Zetia, however, did not kill as many people as Vioxx. Vioxx is now not allowed to advertise, but doctors can still prescribe it. Vioxx is no longer advertised for the same reason that no prescription drug should be advertised: patients will ask for it and it will be over prescribed. Vioxx had been created to treat inflammation in people at risk for gastro-intestinal issues while using things like aspirin. You would think that it would have been prescribed to only patients with a high risk of GI problems. However, it is estimated that nearly 90% of of Vioxx users did not need the drug. Just over 10% of those patients prescribed Vioxx needed the drug. Why were so many people over prescribed this drug? Vioxx was heavily advertised. Heavy advertising means hefty sales. Patients go to their doctors and ask for Vioxx. Doctors prescribe Vioxx because of perks from drug companies for prescribing their drugs. Suddenly we have nearly half a million people on Vioxx, only 10 - 12% actually need it and a few years later we find that 139,000 people have been injured by Vioxx. http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/6782229/ and over 60,000 dead from heart attacks. To end this discussion, I’d like to quote one of my favorite PBS programs that is no longer on the air, NOW: It is hardly a secret that direct-to-consumer drug advertising is big business. In December 2004 the New York Times reported that a recent study by advertising revenue tracker TNS Media Intelligence/CMR found that prescription medicine ads aired during ABC, CBS and NBC's nightly news accounted for nearly 29 percent, or $110 million, of all ad revenue from January through September of 2004. Vioxx's makers had spent $78 million on direct-to-consumer ads last year and other products have tallies just as high. Call your representatives, ask them how much money s/he received from the Pharmaceutical Industry, and then ask him/her if that amount of money would affect whether s/he votes to outlaw prescription drug advertising. Over and over and over it has been demonstrated that television advertising of prescription drugs leads to overprescribing these drugs. Here are a few free numbers to the DC offices (that we’ve checked out): 800-828-0498, 800-614-2803 and 877-851-6437. Just ask for your representative’s office. Legal Lie: Aspirin will protect you from a heart attack. The Reality: Magnesium, garlic, vitamin C, and fish oils will protect you from a heart attack. Aspirin will increase your chances of hemorrhagic stroke some 40%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.