The *Epic Fail* of pharmaceutical advertising on TV

Over the years, I’ve noticed some fairly egregious logical fallacies, half-truths, outright borderline-deception, and other ridiculousness in the arena of pharmaceutical drugs advertised on TV (“Direct-to-Consumer” advertising, or “DTC”).  The slipperiness and spin are atrocious.  I thought I’d point out a few examples.  The rhetorical retorts that follow the bolded phrases are almost exclusively the types of diatribes I holler at the TV screen when these stupid things come on.  Natch, I use a shit-ton of snark lol.  😉

“Tell your doctor about all the medicines you take” – wait, what?  “All the medicines“?  Are that many people seriously on that many meds that wording like that is the default?  They’re simply assuming that everyone takes meds and that everyone is on a lot of them.

Or are they not making such an assumption?  Could this kind of phrasing have more of a social engineering attempt, to make the general public feel as though everyone already is on a lot of meds so that they won’t feel so uneasy about receiving prescription after prescription?  You decide.

“Tell your doctor if… (you’ve been to a region where fungal infections are common, you’ve had a recent infection, etc)” – But isn’t it your doc’s job to know that stuff and to ask you those questions?  Isn’t that what the $100-250 (out of pocket; insurance copays vary widely) cost for the 5-whole-minutes with the MD is for?  Or the 8-12 years of education they brag about – shouldn’t they have learned to take a decent basic history at some point during all those years?  How the hell am I supposed to know which areas are rife with which diseases?  It’s not my job to connect my Spring Break excursion in March with my gradually-increasing cough in May; it’s yours, conventional docs.  So take more than 36 seconds (real average) of time with me and ask me some real f**king questions.

“Don’t take this drug if you’re allergic to it or any of its ingredients” – Why yes, doctor, can I have that Xarelto allergy panel run first, before I fill that scrip?  Oh, you mean there isn’t any such thing as a Xarelto allergy panel?  You don’t say!  How in the hell am I supposed to know if I’m allergic to a drug if I’ve never taken it before?  Let me call my psychic.

Oh wait–you mean I’m just supposed to take the drug and wait and see what happens?  And if I break out in rashes and welts and my throat and lungs start closing up, then poof!–we’ll know?  Is the population a litter of guinea pigs now?  Guess so.  But if I turn out to be allergic to a drug and I die, my family ain’t gonna call my psychic; they’re going to call an attorney.

“Take Drug X to alleviate Drug Y’s symptoms” (example: opioid-induced constipation, maybe better-known by its cutesy acronym “OIC” (yeah, “oh I see”, too, what they’re doing there)) – OK, let me get this straight: now we’re openly admitting that our drugs are screwing people up, and instead of, you know, maybe pulling them off that drug, we’re just going to prescribe another one, which of course has side effects of its own.  Three cheers for increased drug interactions (the odds of which go up as each new drug is added, as any and all of them can interact with any and all of them, which is about as complex and dangerous as it sounds).  Where the hell do I sign up?

“Drug X not working?  Try Drug Y instead” – So basically, we’re now openly admitting that our shit doesn’t work, but we’re still keeping you on the Medical Merry-go-round.  Got it.  Just wanted to be sure.

My favorite one is a variation on the above theme, when they say, “Drug X not working?  Add Drug Y!”  With no mention of maybe, say, discontinuing the ineffective Drug X?  This happens a lot, especially with antidepressants.  Almost all of which have Black Box Warnings.  And Did You Know: drugs are hardly ever–if ever–studied in combination; the drug trials only give one drug at a time (and in fact, the study subjects cannot be taking any other meds!), and that’s what the safety approvals are based on.  Nobody considers the potential effects of other drugs during those trials.  Yeah, I’m encouraged.

When the list of side effects includes fatal infections, cancers, etc…all for “75% of people saw clearer skin in 4 months” (and define “clearer”?).  Care to define that?  “Clearer” could be any level of improvement, and that level can be infinitesimal.  It could be 1% clearer.  Or less.  And none of the commercial spokespeople touch the elephant in the room – what about the other 25%?  Obviously, they didn’t see “clearer” skin.  Which means, at best, no improvement at all, and at worst, they flared up further.

“Be proactive/Take control of your condition (and other statements of “empowerment); ask your doctor if drug X is right for you.”  No.  Taking control of your condition is not passively taking advice that’s plotted along a path set by cookie cutter “standards of care” and taking a drug to quash symptoms.  Taking control of your condition is attempting to seek out information relating to the root cause (and sorry – unless it’s an autosomal disease/disorder, it’s not all genetic; there’s something else going on, too).  Taking control of your condition is asking questions, making suggestions, demanding to be listened to, choosing open-minded doctors who listen, and firing those who don’t.  Being proactive is choosing your own doctor outside of the insurance network – you know–the one that’s actually going to do you the best service*.

“Stop merely managing your disease/symptoms; take our drug (that merely manages your disease/symptoms).”  This is a variation on the preceding theme; respond to these idiots accordingly.  Hardly any drug on the market actually addresses the root cause of any health issue; they treat symptoms, usually by inhibiting or blocking a pathway or function that the body is wanting to carry out.  Obviously the body doesn’t do this in order to make us miserable, even though it can feel like it.  Instead, the body is trying to compensate for a really f**ked up environment/stimulus, and it’s doing the only thing it knows how.  To stop that compensation mechanism with a drug might make us feel better (short-term, usually), but the drug does nothing to fix that underlying f**ked up environment/stimulus that’s causing the body to go haywire in the first place.  And it never will.  And if (since) it’s not, it’s mere management and nothing more, no matter what flowery phrasing we use to advertise it.

“Our product (a screening test) is not intended for the people who really need it and would be the only ones likely to use it.  (It’s only intended for those who don’t really need it.)”  So….I’m supposed to screen for a condition that I probably won’t get, using a test that I probably don’t need, with money I don’t have, but heaven forbid I actually have an increased risk of developing that disease, because that same test isn’t geared for me?  “Here, do this thing you don’t need; for people who do need it, well, sorry, it’s not for you.”  What the hell kind of sense is that?  Why bother even developing something like that?  Drug development is expensive; now we know where part of those astronomical medical costs are going!

The whole drug advertising world is f**ked up.  Period.  I would like to see these ads completely re-banned.

(*As your resources and energy allow) ❤

❤

❤