so my father and I've been discussing this one as of late and I hadn't seen any threads on it. im sure there are plenty of anti-drug company nuts out there (the fake cures thread made me think of it).

so whats ur call:

1) Merck out to cover up stupidity in not recalling drug sooner and/or not testing well enough

2) Stupid woman out to make a buck since her husband died and happened to take a controversial drug

specifically this recent case draws a lot of interest. the dead husband was claimed to be super active and healthy but he had clogged arteries in the autopsy and they "killling bloodclot" was never found. rather fishy. not saying merck is full of saints of course.

8/24/2005 9:03:58 AM

when there's money to be made, there's someone to make it.

That applies to both sides, 1 and 2.

8/24/2005 9:06:22 AM

granted, but id rather look at this issue then generalities.

8/24/2005 9:10:38 AM

Vioxx helped a lot of people and drastically improved their quality of life.

Increase risk of heart attack or being able to walk again? You pick.

Granted, Merck should have been more forthcoming with information and thats their fuckup.


[Edited on August 24, 2005 at 9:34 AM. Reason : ed]

8/24/2005 9:13:57 AM

I'm personally for the drug companies. Yes, they're improving people's lives. Let's draw a parallel to something else that might kill you: cigarettes.

It relieves stress for a lot of people who know it WILL eventually kill them.

The drugs treat symptoms that MAY have side effects (look at the commercials... ass bleeding is usually a side effect).

I don't think the drug companies should be restricted in making drugs that did pass FDA standards. However, if the company is proven negligent in keeping a drug on the shelf where they knew fatalities were sure to happen, then they should be punished.

8/24/2005 9:20:36 AM

Yeah, this isn't really an issue about selling a dangerous drug; we've got much more dangerous prescription drugs out there that are used by doctors in special circumstances. In this case, I think it's Merck that screwed up by not being more transparent about its discoveries.

8/24/2005 9:41:15 AM

im against advertising drugs over public airwaves


or private for that matter





[Edited on August 24, 2005 at 9:48 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 24, 2005 at 9:49 AM. Reason : .]

8/24/2005 9:48:00 AM

I had really bad back spasms coupled with a nasty case of rotator cuff tendonitis. the ONLY thing I was able to take that relieved the pain without knocking me out was vioxx.

when it was taken off the market my doctor gave me something else ( can't remember at the moment), but while it fixed the pain, it would make me so loopy that I couldn't work. Then I was back to 800mg of ibuprofen 4 times a day, which is horrible for the liver.

sure, a small number of people died from PRE-EXISTING problems that were made worse by vioxx, but that's more a problem with doctors who should have been paying better attention to their patients.

Quote :

"im against advertising drugs over public airwaves or private for that matter"

I totally agree.

8/24/2005 9:56:25 AM

After spending the last year working for a bunch of trial lawyers, I'm not as big a fan of the drug companies as I used to be. They intentionally hide all kinds of shit because they're worried about the negative publicity, and the docs inevitably come out during the discovery phases of these trials. That's seriously fucked up IMO.

RedGuard pretty much summed up my thoughts on the whole thing...

8/24/2005 10:06:51 AM

hey packguy and bobbydigital...did there use to be some sort of law banning the use of airtime for prescription drugs?

It seems like when I think back about 10, or maybe even 8 years ago, you never saw these commercials? Im just wondering if a restriction has been lifted.

8/24/2005 10:10:29 AM

^
There wasn't an outright ban, just a lot of regulations. Those got loosened by the FDA in August 1997, primarily relating to the amount of "fine print" that had to be included in the commercials (broadcast ads originally had to include all the verbiage the FDA put on the bottle, meaning you've got 10-20 seconds of a 30 second ad piece reciting stuff no one cares about).

The rules were loosened in August 1997, and additional regulations have come from the FDA and FCC. But later attempts at outright government bans have been rightfully thrown out by the Supreme Court on free speech grounds (including a 2002 regulation designed to bar advertisement of "drug compounding" -- basically creating the drug cocktails that are critical to some folks with special needs like HIV/AIDS).

I don't have a problem with broadcast drug advertising in itself, I have a problem with shitty doctors prescribing drugs to people who don't need it so they can make a little extra $texas...

[Edited on August 24, 2005 at 10:23 AM. Reason : ---]

8/24/2005 10:22:27 AM

its just that a culture has been created where everything can be attributed as a medical problem and people with inadequacies attempt to regain control of their lives by blaming their shortcomings on things they percieve as beyond their control.

i was diagnosed with ADD when i was in middle school and they were like OMFG ritalin for this guy

i havent taken it in YEARS and im doing quite well

[Edited on August 24, 2005 at 10:24 AM. Reason : .]

8/24/2005 10:24:19 AM

i am a firm believer that add is just an excuse

In my day, I was called hyperactive, and the prescription was an ass whooping

[Edited on August 24, 2005 at 10:27 AM. Reason : yea, some really have problems, but most dont need medication]

8/24/2005 10:27:02 AM

LEGALIZE WEED

8/24/2005 10:27:13 AM

some people here say weed cures everything

[Edited on August 24, 2005 at 10:33 AM. Reason : afafd]

8/24/2005 10:33:28 AM

If drug companies plastered in big bold letters "THIS PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU, EVEN IF WE CAN'T IMAGINE HOW" on all their products, would they then be safe from litigation?

8/24/2005 11:44:01 AM

i would think that would be bad for sales

also, can't you advertise for a drug with no warnings as to its possible side effects, as long as you don't say what the drug is for?

that's why you see those commercials where they won't tell you what the drug does.

8/24/2005 12:00:34 PM

does packguy = tom cruise? just wondering

8/24/2005 12:13:38 PM

i was diagnosed with ADD when i was in ...hey whats that

8/24/2005 12:53:47 PM