This is good.
Though why anyone would want to take the drugs based on the tv ad after listening to the side effects disclaimers boggles me.
Ask your doctor if Hydrozurpicone is right for you
(Side effects may include only seeing the color blue, nausea, hunger, an irrational hatred of men named Jeff, sweaty palms, hairy palms, and death by a thousand cuts)
Butā¦butā¦if they get rid of all those bizarre, inscrutable, cringe-inducing drug ads that go WAY too long for comfortā¦who will sponsor the local early evening news? Iām especialy fond of the masterpieces that never really communicate whatever it is they are supposed to cure or alleviate. Itās always āask your doctor about strangephonicsaladā drugā¦ My first questions would be āwhat the hell is itā¦and whatās if for?ā
Apparently I misinterpret the visual clues too. Iāve seen that Abilify babeā¦and I thought she was flashing bedroom eyes for someoneās benefit. Turns out sheās just zoned out on pills. Too bad. I might have gotten some of those forā¦well, you know.
I donāt know about patent abuseā¦ exactly. Itās a little more complicated. It costs a great deal after regulatory safety mandates (which are absolutely necessary, donāt get me wrong) to bring a drug to market. By the time the drug makes it out onto the market, the drug companies usually have only three to six years to recoup costs and to make a profit before their patent expires. Generally, I donāt defend large business conglomerates, but it clarifies why they do a lot of the things they do, including very aggressive marketing. Weirdly, I think extending drug patents might partially alleviate the problem. Or if not extending them universally, granting them an extension after they clear regulatory hurdles for safety. It really depends on whether companies will end up pocketing the difference. I think thereās sufficient diversity in the market that they wonāt, but some extra regulations to prevent that might be in order.
Ask your doctor if prescription NomoradsĀ® is right for your case of mild to severe irritation with pharmaceutical commercials!
I think one of the things that Canada does correctly is not allow medical advertisements. It works well. Itās always extremely disconcerting when I go to the USA and am bombarded with those; itās like, on what POSSIBLE basis could I make the determination that a particular medication is āgood for meā? Let the doctor make the call. Medication is firmly in the ānot my problemā category. Let the insurance companies squabble about how much it costs.
I guess this will free up more money for pharmaceutical companies to bribe doctors directly.
Side Effects: Death
Theyād still ingest it, look at āfast foodā, people eat it every day.
The scary thing is youāre not that far off from reality which, for me, is really the most annoying thing about the āSide effects may includeā¦ā part of drug commercials. Itās impossible to make a joke about them because almost anything you can think of really is a potential side-effect. The line between reality and any conceivable satire is just way too thin.
Itās like trying to make up crazy baskets for an episode of Chopped. āYour ingredients are gummi bears, asphalt, liquid helium, and barracuda nostrils.ā And my friend says, āOh, yeah, Iāve seen that episode.ā
All those animated drug ads are weird as hell and give me the creeps. There is something just off putting about them that I canāt put my finger on.
This was exactly my thought. O noble doctors, banning the marketing dollars from flowing anywhere else except themselves. Crony capitalism at its finest.
Instead of supporting a ban, they could just, you know, say no when someone asks for prescription for something not appropriate or effective.
I smell what you are stepping in 
(But I literally just had one of those crazy side effects last week, so I granted myself one silly joke :D)
Oh, Iām not in favour of public adverts for medication either.
Just cynical about the whole industry.
What you need are for all medical insurers to die in a fire and be replaced by a single payer healthcare system, non-gamed clinical trials, and an independent body something like NICE to be making funding decisions.
My aunt was a nurse and took a job for a while working for a pharma company. Ostensibly, she was meant to visit doctors, go to conferences etc. and let people know about these new treatment options that were available. But it was just such a sordid experience. She hated it. My dad worked for big pharma for years, told her it would be like that.
I donāt believe that the ROI on drugs is higher in the US than in, say, Germany, where ads for prescription medicaments are not allowed.
But then we wont get to see charming characters like this little guy. I shall call himā¦Menudo Man.
(As if the walking talking mucus ball wasnt bad enoughā¦)
Iām not sure how to parse that statementā¦ because if it didnāt work, why would they do it? Not saying businesses canāt be irrational, but then itās a non-issue. Are they losing money elsewhere?
Also, Iām not averse to banning prescription drug advertisements, but when people talk about the drug patent lifeline, I think most people donāt understand that itās a big part of rising drug costs.
The early viagra (et al) ads baffled me also at first. In fact, I think that was the point where I started thinking, why can they even do these ads in the first place? I had thought that that was illegal.
But how else will I ever learn about risky drugs that might add six months of agony to the end of my life, should I somehow get a rare, incurable disease?
You wrote that it is financially useful for the pharma companies to advertise because of the short time span they have a monopoly on a new drug.
Iām not convinced, the pharma profits in the western world are comparable - in markets with and without marketing directed at consumers.
