Why do we put up with this? Drug/adds OP ED

[Jackalope]

I take a medication that carries an FDA black box warning due to life-threatening potential adverse effects. I knew this when I started taking it. However, the serious side effects are rather rare.
By comparison, the condition I have results in premature death with frightening regularity.

I consider the risk worth it. It's a simple risk analysis - the known risk of not taking it exceeds greatly the known risk of taking it. As I understand it, such is the case with all FDA-approved drugs.

There are a lot of problems with the prescription drug industry in this country, adverse effects is way down on my give-a-shit meter. There are far, far bigger issues.

[The Grand Nudger]

The list of potential complications of some flu medication might read "sudden death" .  While I suppose I'd rather have the flu than "sudden death" - I'm banking on -not- being one of those people...and I really hate the flu. Some of the meds I've been on in my life have side effects that are arguably worse than the ailment, but ultimately that only matters when you're one of the people those complications present themselves in. So I, for example, used to take shit that might induce "night terror"...to get deeper sleep. Mull that one over. If there's anything worse than "night terror" it would have to be being stuck in a deep, deep sleep while you experienced it, lol.

OTOH, if I didn't get those winks, it was just a matter of time until I accidentally (or accidentally n-purpose) shot someone...or at least ran them over.

[Brian37]

The list of potential complications of some flu medication might read "sudden death" .  While I suppose I'd rather have the flu than "sudden death" - I'm banking on -not- being one of those people...and I really hate the flu.  Some of the meds I've been on in my life have side effects that are arguably worse than the ailment, but ultimately that only matters when you're one of the people those complications present themselves in.  So I, for example, used to take shit that might induce "night terror"...to get deeper sleep.  Mull that one over.  If there's anything worse than "night terror" it would have to be being stuck in a deep, deep sleep while you experienced it, lol.

OTOH, if I didn't get those winks, it was just a matter of time until I accidentally (or accidentally n-purpose) shot someone...or at least ran them over.

The filtering of if you need it or not, is fine. But not in an add with fast talk and fine print. Again, we are not talking about flu vaccines. I am all for that, and children getting vaccines. I am talking about drugs, yes, but it is still part of a corporate climate. I am not talking about any lagit use someone may need. I am talking strictly about marketing tactics. 

It is just like guns, it isn't that people have them, and some people do need them, but the marketing is the issue. I don't like the flood of marketing. It isn't there for the consumer. Far too much of ALL businesses at the top are about finding more shareholders. The NRA scares the crap out of gun owners, not because the other side wants a dictatorship, they scare the crap out of people to KEEP POWER. Corporate adds, no matter the product, including drugs, but anything, are designed to sell you a fix, either through saying "You need this", or "if you don't buy this bad things will happen". 

I think consumers would do better to consult a doctor directly, even get a second opinion, not listen to an add. Just like one should not buy a car because some guy is shouting loudly on a TV.

There is a huge difference between neutral science, and corporate boardrooms whom have a money motivation to get their "scientists" to make a product sound lagit. If you watch the COSMOS series with Neil Degrasse Tyson, in one of the episodes they noted the history of the Lead industry, which at the time put out adds in black and white cartoons selling the idea that "Lead is natural, lead is your friend".


Dont confuse lagit science with money motivations. Neutral science is objective.

[The Grand Nudger]

The filtering of if you need it or not, is fine. But not in an add with fast talk and fine print.

No one does any of that filtering because of adds, and it wouldn't matter if they did..because they'd still need a prescription.

Again, we are not talking about flu vaccines. I am all for that, and children getting vaccines. I am talking about drugs, yes, but it is still part of a corporate climate. I am not talking about any lagit use someone may need. I am talking strictly about marketing tactics. 

Sure we are.  Prescription flu meds are all the rage come flu season.  

It is just like guns, it isn't that people have them, and some people do need them, but the marketing is the issue. I don't like the flood of marketing. It isn't there for the consumer. Far too much of ALL businesses at the top are about finding more shareholders. The NRA scares the crap out of gun owners, not because the other side wants a dictatorship, they scare the crap out of people to KEEP POWER. Corporate adds, no matter the product, including drugs, but anything, are designed to sell you a fix, either through saying "You need this", or "if you don't buy this bad things will happen". 

One axe at a time, I think.

I think consumers would do better to consult a doctor directly, even get a second opinion, not listen to an add. Just like one should not buy a car because some guy is shouting loudly on a TV.

Hence the "consult your physician to see if our drug is right for you" song and dance..no?  

There is a huge difference between neutral science, and corporate boardrooms whom have a money motivation to get their "scientists" to make a product sound lagit. If you watch the COSMOS series with Neil Degrasse Tyson, in one of the episodes they noted the history of the Lead industry, which at the time put out adds in black and white cartoons selling the idea that "Lead is natural, lead is your friend".

Dont confuse lagit science with money motivations. Neutral science is objective.

...............?

[AceBoogie]

Again, I am NOT against the private sector, but far too much of the laws we have befit the top at the risk of the rest of society.

I constantly hear, not just with human medicine but pet products, the disclaimers of all the possible side effects. And some of them depending on product disclaim very dangerous even deadly side effects? Why is it OK for these companies to get away with this shit? Get it out first, worry about lawsuits later? 

Just like cars with defective parts, why is the chase for the buck more important than getting it right before you sell the product? It always ends up costing the consumer and company more in health and injury and courts. 

I hate the right wing always screaming "COMMIE" just becuase you suggest putting out a safer product.

What exactly are you trying to point out? That people are self serving and driven by profit? Yea, that's capitalism at its best. I would argue that capitalism is a necessary evil. It's safer now to be sick than any other time in history. As far as automobiles, a brand new car now days can last you 20 years given that you take care of it properly (oil changes, tire rotations, transmission maintenance, etc.).. Is that a bad thing?

In a purely capitalist world we would lose all regulation and I believe things would eventually devolve into some sort of chaotic, dystopian wasteland. And I don't believe anyone thinks that's a good thing. But more regulation isn't always a better thing, either. I do agree that the right gets sort of crazy about this sometime. Any attempt by government to keep a cap on things is seen as "big government oppressing us," when that's often far from the case.

[Mermaid]

Again, I am NOT against the private sector, but far too much of the laws we have befit the top at the risk of the rest of society.

I constantly hear, not just with human medicine but pet products, the disclaimers of all the possible side effects. And some of them depending on product disclaim very dangerous even deadly side effects? Why is it OK for these companies to get away with this shit? Get it out first, worry about lawsuits later? 

Just like cars with defective parts, why is the chase for the buck more important than getting it right before you sell the product? It always ends up costing the consumer and company more in health and injury and courts. 

I hate the right wing always screaming "COMMIE" just becuase you suggest putting out a safer product.

The company is required to list all side effects if more than 2% of the subjects have the symptom, even if there was no difference between the control group and the tested product.

---

By the way, the FDA makes companies prove safety and effectiveness of everything before approval. They do the very best they can, but no system is perfect.

You are talking about two different topics here though. Advertising prescription medication to the public is a valid concern, IMO. It's arguably shaped the course of modern medicine since its inception. Before this, nobody went to their doctor and asked for a specific drug.

Out of curiosity, which pet medication did you see the ad for that triggered this thread? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[Jackalope]

The list of potential complications of some flu medication might read "sudden death".

Coincidentally, one of the potential complications of the flu is death - I expect more substantially frequently than that for medication.

[CapnAwesome]

What's a drug add?

[drfuzzy]

Again, I am NOT against the private sector, but far too much of the laws we have befit the top at the risk of the rest of society.

I constantly hear, not just with human medicine but pet products, the disclaimers of all the possible side effects. And some of them depending on product disclaim very dangerous even deadly side effects? Why is it OK for these companies to get away with this shit? Get it out first, worry about lawsuits later? 

Just like cars with defective parts, why is the chase for the buck more important than getting it right before you sell the product? It always ends up costing the consumer and company more in health and injury and courts. 

I hate the right wing always screaming "COMMIE" just becuase you suggest putting out a safer product.

Not only that, but drug companies did not advertise (were not allowed to? -- I need to do some research) until 1983.  Before that, it was customary to send relevant information to doctors and pharmacists only.  As soon as drug companies could advertise, health care costs in the US skyrocketed.  Imagine that.    https://www.statnews.com/2015/12/11/unto...n-drug-ad/

[popeyespappy]

What's a drug add?