Posted by MB on June 25, 2003, at 15:26:30
In reply to Re: Are commercials for scheduled drugs illegal?, posted by Viridis on June 25, 2003, at 11:30:27
> I don't know what the law says, but since most scheduled drugs are off-patent (at least those thought to have abuse potential), my guess is that there isn't much profit motive, given the availability of generics. The goal is to get people onto the newer, still-patented ones, whether they're best or not.
Right, so this "we care enough to educate the public about mental illness" tone of the commercials is B.S. It's more like: "now that we can make money off it, did you know that such and such illness exists, and that you might have it?"
The illnesses were just as real before Paxil was approved for GAD or before Strattera was approved for adult ADD. I mean, up until recently (when stims were the only real ADD treatment) the idea of adult ADD was controversial. Now we have Strattera, and these commercials come out supporting the existence of adult ADD as if it's just a given that it exists. This makes me feel like the controversy surrounding adult ADD never had to do with the medical community's disagreement over the pathology of ADD, but, instead, the medical community's FEAR of giving stimulants to adults. Now that Strattera is here, the arguments about adult ADD have disapeared...Am I being to cynical here? Probably.
> Have you ever noticed how some drug commercials don't actually tell you what the drug is for? They just show a bunch of happy people and make you think hey, I want that, whatever it's for. Apparently if they do tell you what the med treats, then they have to list the side effects, which can obviously detract from the "buy this" message.
Heck, I've noticed that many commercials don't actually tell you what they're for. They just show sexy people having fun, and when the commercial is over, you have to wonder what it was all about.MB
poster:MB
thread:236851
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030624/msgs/236988.html