Prescription for Addiction: Tens of $Milllions in Advertising, Test Results Approved By Spin Doctors and 2 Lobbyists Per Congressperson.

"Spare any Change?"...

Utter those three, innocuous, little words - here in San Francisco, anyway - and you risk getting written up by the local beat cops for what is called "Aggressive Panhandling".

"Buds?"...
Of course, offering to sell people street drugs might get you three hots and a cot with a view of the cell facing yours.

But, if you happen to be aggressively selling pharmaceutical drugs...

Well, then there's quite a different outcome...

If you're an American pharmaceutical company, you need never fear being sent to prison for spending millions of dollars enticing citizens of all ages - via an endless barrage of flashy tv commercials and magazine ads - to take drugs that they not only do not need... but to pay exorbitant prices for and to take drugs that may not work... or, if they do have effects... some turn out to be much worse than the initial issue that they are taking the drug for.

Did you know that it's only in America and New Zealand that drug companies are allowed to do DTC advertising ("Direct-To-Consumer").

I used to get annoyed at the endless barrage of car commercials...
But, they were for cars... and I skateboard, the S.F. Bay Area has an extensive public transit system and tooting your horn about your cars getting a whopping 30mpg is not impressive nor toot-worthy... it's tragic and disappointing.

I haven't done a scientific survey...
But, I'm pretty sure that those glossy, smiling, happy, warm-fuzzy, drug-dealing, big Pharma ads are aiming to outnumber car ads 2-to-1.

Listening to the dialogue being uttered in them, I want to scream. I find them sneaky and misleading. What is actually said in the ads and what it sounds like they are saying are very different things. It also bothers me that they give out a grocery list of symptoms, so that you are now well-informed and can go report these symptoms to your doctor and possibly get a Rx written whether or not you really have them. Then, there's the laundry list of possible side-effects, which is as long as the rest of the commercial, but is squeezed into and speed-read in less than four seconds.

There's one that is utterly mind-boggling to me and, apparently, not many others since it's still on the air. It's for a product called "Humira", I believe. Something marketed as being used to affect symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis. Anyway, one of the many possible and horrible side-effects associated with this medication is lymphoma...

That's LYMPHOMA, people... Cancer of the Lymph Glands!... A "possible Side-Effect"?
I don't know about you... but I'd rather deal with sore joints and take Advil or get Acupuncture... than deal with CANCER.

I often have said... and still stand behind my statement that, "The FDA is NOT Your Friend." And, sadly, Congress is, thus far, too well-lobbied to take action to make measureable changes in how Big Pharma does its drug-testing and dealing.

Thankfully, there are Real People who are looking out for your health and mine... and they aren't dressed in white lab coats and wearing stethoscopes...
Former NY Times journalist Melody Petersen has written a thoughtful, well-researched and very timely book on the subject: Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs (Sarah Chrichton Books).

I recommend it. Some of what she reveals might make you angry, but, at least you'll be better informed... and that alone is empowering.

Peace.
And Here's to Your Informed, Good Health.
L.

(From: www.huffingtonpost.com/.)
Our Daily Meds: Navigating the Polypharmacy
Derek Beres
Posted April 17, 2008 | 12:21 AM (EST)



In the 1970s, Professor J. Scott Armstrong put forth a conundrum to close to 2,000 business school students and executive trainees. Intrigued by the corporatizing of the pharmaceutical industry, he created a scenario (based on an actual 1969 incident) in which a company has a new drug with a projected $20 million profit. The catch: For each million the company nets, there is one death from side effects. The first twenty million meant twenty deaths, and so on thereafter.

Students and trainees were given five options, ranging from immediately pulling the drug from shelves--regulators stated cheaper, more effective pills without such grave side effects exist--to downplaying risks and promoting the drug heavily, creating a media-driven whitewash in which consumers could not discern problems, and therefore readily open their pockets.

The results? Zero took the first option; 79% chose the latter. As former NY Times journalist Melody Petersen writes in her new book, Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs (Sarah Chrichton Books), "For these students and trainees, who were playing the roles of the executives they would soon become, profits took precedence over patients."

As one can imagine by the book's subtitle, the above is not an isolated case study. In fact, it shows how the drive to maximize profits at any expense is built into the educational system by which students become executives. Petersen spends the majority of her book citing such examples, moving from hard facts and statistical data to personal interviews with people who have fallen victim to the marketing of pharmaceutical companies or, worse, have lost loved ones during the same process.

The varied and often disguised layers of pharmaceutical marketing and maneuvering begin at the outset, when Petersen reminds us that Americans spent $250 billion in 2005 on prescription drugs -- twice as much as we paid for higher education or new cars. This total is also greater than the population of "Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina combined." Sadly, this is due in part because our federal government is the only office in the developed world that does not control prescription drug prices. It leaves that to the companies themselves, a process that belittles the integrity of the medical profession--which is supposed to be about healing--by sticking to the idea that "the few the options, the higher the price; the greater the desperation, the greater the suffering, the higher the price."

Even more depressing are corporate payouts to doctors, the men and women who are supposed to represent the pinnacle of the healthcare profession. Petersen cites numerous examples of doctors receiving payola for prescribing certain drugs, like Dr. B.J. Wilder, who received a $401,350 check from Warner-Lambert to send himself and 125 medical residents to a luxury resort in Florida, or Dr. Ilo Leppik, who received a stipend of $303,600 to publish his book on epilepsy. Both were awarded those sums for the support they gave to Neurontin -- a drug that Pfizer (which came to own Warner-Lambert) had to pay $430 million in court fees for illegally marketing. An estimated 90% of prescriptions of the drug were for uses that the drug was not approved to treat, including attention deficit disorder and sexual dysfunction. Originally developed to combat epilepsy (and even then, not very well), it became a hit for the company for a variety of other "illnesses" which it did nothing for.

Again, this is not an isolated case by any means. Buying off doctors to promote prescriptions -- a practice which takes numerous forms, including "scientific" reports written by marketing companies and signed off by supposedly respected professionals, as well as partnering with them to help create diseases that don't necessarily exist--affects the majority of the industry. As Petersen often reminds us, paying off DJs to play music was regulated thanks to governmental intervention. When dealing with substances that can, and are, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans (the healthcare industry is the third biggest killer in the country, behind heart failure and cancer), however, the government and FDA remain mute.

I found myself getting angry at each page I turned. Yet it was an empowering rage, one based in knowledge. The book is like lifting the veil of ignorance that hangs over a country inundated with bright, colorful advertisements with perky stuffed animals and light violet skies promising us peace, equanimity and fun. The reality is anything but. In 2003, an executive from GlaxoSmithKline said that more than 90% of drugs "only work in 30 or 50 percent of the people," and their own tests found that certain drugs were only 25% effective. To maximize profits, though, they've encouraged the creation of a polypharmacy, where a person is on multiple prescriptions.

Often people are given one drug to battle one problem, and then another to counter the side effects of the first pill, and so on. This is bad enough when pushed on seniors, who rely on their doctors to help them enjoy their later years in as good of health as possible (and who, by the way, Petersen points out, are rarely if ever tested clinically when companies are trying out new drugs; these tests are almost always on young and healthy men and women). When our children became the focus of such marketing--between 2000-2004, prescriptions for sleeping pills in children age 10-19 increased 85% -- it is inexcusable.

Tragically, a drug often works no better than a sugar pill, yet the pharmaceutical industry is driving -- let's make that dominating -- our economy. Petersen projects that by 2015 one in every five dollars we earn will be feed back into healthcare. This might be justifiable if it meant that our health was getting better. To the contrary, we're actually declining in health as a nation, as our life expectancy rates have fallen far from the top of the list of "developed" worlds. How developed a nation can be when a small percentage of business executives is knowingly and purposefully promoting drugs that are killing fellow humans remains a question that Petersen does not, and cannot, answer. Thankfully, with this elucidating book, we can take that question into our own hands, and decide for ourselves how hooked on their tether we remain.