Brought to you by Big Pharma

I had a visit with my 70-something neighbors last night. We watched some vintage TV... Andy Griffith and The Beverly Hillbillies. Within a two hour period, there must have been 20 drug commercials, with one really cringy commercial for Jardiance airing three times. I saw two commercials promoting drugs for apparent new diseases. This is nothing new. Nothing new at all. It's been dubbed 'disease mongering'. This is standard operating procedure for the drug makers. If they can't convince the public that normal, benign conditions demand treatment with drugs, then the companies will literally invent maladies.

But wait...a writer for Forbes, who covers the pharmaceutical industry, claims that the drug companies are really good, and honest, and ethical. They're hard working, dedicated people who devote their lives to serving humanity. If you believe in 'malady-mongering', then you're a conspiracy theorist. The pharma companies don't invent diseases, they find treatments for unrecognized and undiagnosed conditions. Because they want to help people. The profits, apparently, are secondary.

Thanks for straightening us out, Forbes. I was almost convinced that some of those drug companies were crooked. Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing.
That government report must be disinformation, spread by conspiracy theorists. Pfizer is number one in "patient centricity", as their facebook page clearly demonstrates. We're #1

You can scan a couple of these stories and draw your own conclusions. Drug companies invent diseases.
Are you Distracted? Disorganized? Frustrated? It's not just modern life, it's ADD! Marketing drugs through disease-mongering

Brought to you by Pfizer!


Bonus:

'Jardiance is really swell, the little pill with a big story to tell'
(featuring Deanna “Bomb Chica” DellaCioppa Colón)

a reply to: ColeYounger

I think the biggest issue is why are these commercials even on TV?
Anyone dealing with a medical issue should be seeing a doctor and that doctor should be prescribing the proper medication... Why should I need to ask my doctor if "plomox,etc" is right for me?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ColeYounger

I think the biggest issue is why are these commercials even on TV?
Anyone dealing with a medical issue should be seeing a doctor and that doctor should be prescribing the proper medication... Why should I need to ask my doctor if "plomox,etc" is right for me?

I agree. I can see this technique working for OTC medications. You hit the consumer with multiple ads for Anacin for pain relief and you are much more likely to buy it on your next visit to the grocery store. But you have to be a special kind of stupid to see a TV ad for some exotic medication, then demand your physician prescribe it. It's almost as stupid as coming onto ATS and asking for medical advice.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ColeYounger

I think the biggest issue is why are these commercials even on TV?
Anyone dealing with a medical issue should be seeing a doctor and that doctor should be prescribing the proper medication... Why should I need to ask my doctor if "plomox,etc" is right for me?

I know. It's crazy. That Jardiance commercial is like a bad SNL sketch. What are they thinking? People with diabetes will trust them because they produced a commercial with a big musical number, featuring singing and dancing?

"Hey doc, I've been taking Farxiga for my diabetes, but I'd like you to switch me to Jardiance. They have a fun commercial."

a reply to: ColeYounger

Yes, 'conditions' like ADHD, depression etc are money makers , made up conditions.
I feel depressed for sure, but it's due to life circumstances. Change those and the 'condition' magically would vanish.
They make more money with more fishing nets (conditions). They are so criminally corrupt, who knows what the long term effects are of all these drugs (cancer etc ?)

Not disagreeing with what you are saying here in your OP, nor am I defending pharma (not by a longshot!), but there is another angle to look at this.

We can blame pharma all we want, but we have to remember who the audience is for all these advertisements you refer to. It's the public; it's society all around us. They're not marketing to the medical community, they're marketing to Jane & John Doe. Medical marketing is done through much different channels. On the one hand, you could argue these companies are 'convincing' people they have some malady or disease, and this may be partly true. However, on the other hand, we can't forget that we live in a society which is being increasingly indoctrinated to believe there is a pill/drug for everything. The minute something doesn't go exactly how someone hoped it would go in their life...there's a drug for that. The drug doesn't solve the problem, in many cases it just obfuscates it (i.e. makes it less noticeable). This indoctrination is not being driven by big pharma, but rather it is being driven by the increasing 'victim' mentality, and the desire to be free from any accountability. As much as I'd love to blame big pharma for this, I can't. We have to look elsewhere for that evil doer.

And oddly, there's also a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy going on here too. At the same time that the populous wants to avoid any and all accountability, these same people want to hold others 100% accountable for everything (remember, they are the 'victim'). So, this manifests itself in a highly litigious society where people sue for any/every thing. THEN what happens is, all sorts of regulations are adopted which prevent manufacturers (like pharma) from selling products through their normal medical channels. The FDA approval process is a big example here. So, armed with gobs of insurance (built into product pricing), and disclaimers ad-nauseum, what you wind up with is the advertisements we see on TV relentlessly.

There's also a 3rd factor in play here, and it is known as "dwell time". Ever since covid, the general populous has almost infinitely more dwell time in front of the TV where they are exposed to advertising. Advertising supports TV programming. Period. Have you ever noticed that the old Ron Popiel Pocket Fisherman type advertisements have all but disappeared on TV? Well, the reason is because there is way more profit (i.e. sponsorship money) to be had from drug companies. Simply put, they can just pay more, so they out-compete the pocket fisherman ads for airtime. Sure, those ads still exist, but not on popular programming that the majority of people watch, and this is the reason why.

When you distill all this down you come back to one common denominator...society (you and me). The bottom line is, if "people" didn't buy these products there would be no advertisements for them. But because "people" very much do buy these products, we see more and more drug companies tripping over each other to sell their wares.

There's an old saying which goes like this (and it applies well to society in general here)...'Remember, when you point a finger at someone, there's three more fingers pointing right back at you!'

Just some observations from the peanut gallery.

a reply to: ColeYounger

And that's exactly what people really DO say to their doctors! They don't say it's a 'fun' commercial, but they do say they want to be switched to that product.

Interestingly, two important things happen when a patient does this. First of all, the physician diligently notes in the patient's record that the patient (not the doctor) requested the change. This mitigates a significant amount of liability. Secondly, the physician now has much less responsibility for detailed disclosure (because if the patient knows the drug, they must also know the risks). Of course, none of this is absolute, but it does slide the onus of responsibility in the direction of patient and away from the physician, to a degree.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ColeYounger

I think the biggest issue is why are these commercials even on TV?
Anyone dealing with a medical issue should be seeing a doctor and that doctor should be prescribing the proper medication... Why should I need to ask my doctor if "plomox,etc" is right for me?

Yup; it's illegal to advertise them in most countries for the exact reasons you state. I also read a report years ago where apparently it's common to have people claiming to be people had almost 'miracle cures' from newer and emerging drugs on US news but over 90% of the people featured in such segments were actors paid and hired by the pharma company and had never actually taken the medication.

Forbes' stance makes no sense as its a recognisesd effect known as 'the overmedicalisation of everyday life' in medical fields caused by the shift in Big Pharma investing 70% into R&D in the 60s and 30% to marketing, to less than 30% going to R&D and over 70% going to advertising by the 90s. The most recent Pfizer CEO got things back to 50s/60s level R&D and are one of the more ethical big/bad pharma companies of recent years.

'Social Anxiety' is a condition that was solely invented to remarket beta-blockers wheras previously it was known as being a bit quiet or shy - there's been a big push to help patients access hobby and interest groups rather than prescribing anti-anxiety meds in the UK and Europe as it's far cheaper and effective.

a reply to: ColeYounger

Great thread, if you want a real good laugh then there's some pretty revealing content being discussed below about how there exists 'no actual evidence' for any of the claims made in psychiatry (and how it's all just based on opinions from vested interests).

Quotes

"Ask your doctor if big pharma profiting off your illness is right for you!"

It is a tax dodge. Pharma takes profits that would be taxed and uses for tax deductible advertising rather that pay tax on those profits. Get to promote drugs and save on taxes.

a reply to: Bluntone22

But can you really even trust the doc to give you what is needed? or will they just give what they are getting kickbacks for? Have seen it and still see it today.

Pharmaceutical Fraud: What are Kickback Schemes? LINK LINK2

Between 2013 and 2016, doctors received payments from pharmaceutical companies for a total of $9 billion. Those who received industry payments were two to three times more likely to prescribe name-brand drugs than their peers.

a reply to: TarantulaBite

Well I guess if it comes down to a choice between taking my doctors medical advice or the advice of a big pharma marketing team..... 🤔

a reply to: Bluntone22

Right...it's like WHO do you trust these days....Cuz it's all about $$$.

a reply to: TarantulaBite

Yep..
The best case is to have a doctor you can trust but it's hard to even get an appointment with a family doctor without waiting a month.

originally posted by: karl 12
[SNIP]

wOw

NEW STUDY FINDS BIG PHARMA SPENT MORE ON SALES AND MARKETING THAN R&D DURING PANDEMIC LINK LINK2

The study shows that brand name drug manufacturers including AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Bayer and Johnson & Johnson all spent more on marketing and selling their products in 2020 than they did on developing new treatments:


AbbVie spent $11 billion on sales and marketing in 2020, compared to $8 billion on R&D.
Pfizer spent $12 billion on sales and marketing, compared to $9 billion on R&D.
Novartis spent $14 billion on sales and marketing, compared to $9 billion on R&D.
GlaxoSmithKline spent $15 billion on sales and marketing, compared to $7 billion on R&D.
Sanofi spent $11 billion on sales and marketing, compared to $6 billion on R&D.
Bayer spent $18 billion on sales and marketing, compared to $8 billion on R&D.
Johnson & Johnson spent $22 billion on sales and marketing, compared to $12 billion on R&D.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Or they only want to do Remote App vs in person....I think key is finding one that's NOT a pill pusher and as one you CAN trust

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: ColeYounger

And that's exactly what people really DO say to their doctors! They don't say it's a 'fun' commercial, but they do say they want to be switched to that product.

Interestingly, two important things happen when a patient does this. First of all, the physician diligently notes in the patient's record that the patient (not the doctor) requested the change. This mitigates a significant amount of liability. Secondly, the physician now has much less responsibility for detailed disclosure (because if the patient knows the drug, they must also know the risks). Of course, none of this is absolute, but it does slide the onus of responsibility in the direction of patient and away from the physician, to a degree.

Bingo!

a reply to: ancientlight

Many patients requested a nobel prize winning drug from their doctors only a year or so ago......and the doctors were not allowed to prescribe them.