.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: synthplayer,

And then at the very end they always rattle off all the possible side effects

“Cerentixxxxx may cause gambling, urges to shoplift or even death…”

They especially like to advertise on news stations as it helps prevent negative news coverage.

It was part of Tucker's downfall at Fox. Big Pharma was booking millions of dollars in commercials and didn't like that he was exposing the COVID vaccines.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
And then at the very end they always rattle off all the possible side effects

Sometimes they don't even say what the dumb drug is for or if they do it's damned acronym, but they go on endlessly on side effects.

It's not like that in other countries (e.g. Canada).

I like the one with the possible side effect of "bacterial infection of the skin of the perineum" (probably Fournier gangrene; don't look this up if you're squeamish). I'll take my chances on the "diabeetus." If I could be "benevolent dictator/tyrant" for a day, I'd outlaw these ads.

^^^
Mine is the TV commercial for frequent urination medication and one possible side effects is it may cause anal leakage. I always wondered who would take a drug to pee less and risk getting anal leakage?

Well, as it turned out - my buddy who was sick of peeing 6x per hour. He's a great story teller and I damn near peed myself when he shared his anal leakage side effect journey. BTW, it took 2 days to clear up after he ceased taking the medication.

Ask your doctor if Makusrich is right for you ...

What is it with all of these drug commercials showing people singing and dancing ? The ones with the fat women are really annoying . Edit ..Jardiance .

Here in our TV market it seems it's pretty evenly split between the drug pushers, ambulance chasers, and online casinos.

It's not just the stupid big pharma spots which frankly should be banned. Also in the running for most annoying / disgusting are the spots for a female incontinence syphon appliance.

Think of the profits that are involved with some of those drugs that are for rare conditions. The chances that anyone watching a given broadcast actually has the disease, will "ask their doctor", and the MD will put them on it is tiny, yet the profit is there to support the ad.

Yeah, I see these as well.

One particularly annoying is the one where the pill becomes part of a face that winks so distortingly it borders on retardation.

These aren't as bad as the other local advertisements where the people in the ads can't properly pronounce the name of the company. If they can't figure out how to say it after a few years, could they recognize their inbred stupidity and just have the line read by someone else?

I'm sure it gets even better for those who got a medical degree and risked it all to start their own practice to have someone come in and say:

Well, I way this pill on the teevee...

I have complained about this for years. Drug ads used to be restricted to print media, ie JAMA. Even then they were stupid. Mellaril an old antipsychotic drug had a smile on the pill and danced around. Patients now expect to have these drugs prescribed for them. They ought to just put the drugs in a vending machine and let the patient decide.{sarcasm}. Patients will even complain about getting a generic UNTIL they find out the brand drug is 400 bucks.
They advertise on TV because it works. The video should match the side effects. {vomiting,diarhea etc|

quote:

emale incontinence syphon appliance.

Yeah there should be a video.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

Yeah there should be a video.

Videos should have graphic depiction of side effects like vomiting, diarrhea, maybe a third arm sprouting out, etc.

The dancing and singing fat chick is my current favorite drug commercial.

Worse of all are the ghey Prep ads................

It's interesting to read why and when advertising of pharma drugs was allowed.

Ronald Reagan, April 22, 1988

"I am today signing H.R. 1207, the "Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987," with mixed feelings.

On the one hand, I support the expressed goal of this legislation, which is to reduce potential public health risks that may result from the distribution of mislabeled, subpotent, counterfeit, or adulterated prescription drugs in the secondary source market, the so-called "diversion market." The investigations and prosecutions involving counterfeit and diverted drugs that have been conducted by the Department of Justice during the past few years have demonstrated that the principal factor facilitating the illegal activity that this bill is designed to combat is the almost total lack of traceability of drug products in the diversion market. This bill, to some extent, provides a response to this problem.

On the other hand, I have grave reservations about the bill's provision that would require States to adhere to Federal standards when licensing wholesale drug distributors. This provision represents a substantial intrusion into traditional State responsibilities and prerogatives. The States have always had the primary role in the regulation of wholesale drug distributors, and this bill would substitute the Federal Government for the States in that role."

Details

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:


“Cerentixxxxx

When I retire, I am going to seriously search out a job with Big Phara!
I want to be the guy that comes up with the names for these medications!

"Don't take Dupixent if you're allergic to Dupixent."

Wait, what? How...

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
I'll take my chances on the "diabeetus."

For some of these drugs, the side effects are worse than the condition they treat.

There was one a while ago for, IIRC, a skin condition like psoriasis. The laundry list of serious side effects was mind blowing.