Re: [A-List] Unhealthy accumulation: hallucinatory advertising

["Annewilliamson" <Annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

This article demonstrates, in part, why free prescriptions for seniors is
not a good idea, nor is the global aids fund.   Why?  Both policies are not
designed to assist the afflicted, but to put price supports in place for the
pharmaceutical industry (which is losing its patents and facing a price
freefall.)  Additionally, both policies will deliver to the pharmaceuticals
literally millions of ginnie pigs (or however you spell it :-) for whose
fate they will remain unaccountable.  As is, American seniors are the most
over-medicated group on the planet.  And who is in charge of the UN's global
aids fund?  (Half a billion dollars, BTW)  Why none other than our old pal,
Jeffrey Sachs, and we all know what a committed humanitarian he is
(scuttlebutt has it that Sachs is creating structures to dispense the AIDs
funds similar to the ones he created to dispense USAID money in Russia,
i.e., his own and his pals' already bulging pockets....and none of this was
to say that medicine is not over-priced -- it is -- but these policies will
not solve the problem, but will - in fact - worsen it as it once again puts
in place that magical combination of the political class's ability to
coerce, and the favored business class's desire for subsidy and
monopoly. -A.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:51 AM
Subject: [A-List] Unhealthy accumulation: hallucinatory advertising


> Half of all adverts for drugs are 'misleading'
>
> Doctors advised not to rely on claims for new treatments
> By Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor
> The Sunday Herald, 12 January 2003
>
> Almost half the claims pharma ceutical companies make about their drugs in
> advertisements in medical journals are inaccurate and misleading, new
> research has found.
>
> Colourful drug adverts in medical journals now include
professional-looking
> references to back up claims. But researchers found that 44% of the 102
> claims analysed were not supported by the references quoted at the bottom
of
> the adverts.
>
> Doctors investigated promotional claims in six medical journals about
drugs
> that lower blood pressure and cholesterol. The researchers looked at
claims
> of efficacy, safety, convenience and cost.
>
> The study, published in the Lancet medical journal, concluded: 'Doctors
> should be cautious in the assessment of advertisements that claim a drug
has
> greater efficacy, safety, or convenience, even though these claims seem to
> be supported by bibliographical references to randomised clinical trials
> published in reputable medical journals and seem to be evidence-based.'
>
> The most common complaint was that the studies quoted referred to a
> different group of people than those targeted by the adverts.
>
> 'When the bibliographical reference did not support the advertising claim,
> the most common reasons were very misleading: results from studies done in
> patients with specific characteristics had been automatically transferred
to
> the population at large; alternatively results were applied to specific
> categories of patients, for example, diabetic patients, elderly people or
> women when these patients had in fact been excluded from the study.'
>
> The paper follows a similar study, published in Annals of Internal
Medicine,
> carried out in 1990 when experts were asked to judge the validity of
claims
> made in adverts published in 10 leading medical journals. In the
reviewers'
> opinions, 44% of adverts would lead to improper prescribing if a physician
> had no other information.
>
> Dr Salvador Peiro, from the Valencia School for Health Studies, was lead
> author of the new paper. He said the lack of improvement over the last
> decade is due to weak regulation.
>
> 'The combination of a series of factors, including the large volume of
> advertising material, the weakness of the inspection procedures, the
complex
> bureaucracy of the sanctioning mechanisms, and the imagination of the
> advertisers who place claims within the very limits of truthfulness, make
it
> difficult to use regulations to effectively control advertising.'
>
> The study comes just weeks after a UK advert for a new contraceptive pill,
> used by thousands of women in Britain, was ordered to be withdrawn because
> it was deemed misleading.
>
> Adverts for Schering's Yasmin claimed that, unlike other contraceptives,
the
> new pill would avoid weight gain and give women a sense of well-being.
> Schering launched the pill last year, with adverts showing an attractive,
> smiling woman in soft focus alongside the strapline: 'The pill for
> well-being.'
>
> At £59 for 12 cycles of treatment, the pill costs the NHS up to eight
times
> more than any other combined oral contraceptive. The adverts had to be
> withdrawn after the government's Medicines Control Agency (MCA) found that
> the claims could not be supported.
>
> But the MCA gave the Yasmin ad the all-clear last June. It was only
> withdrawn when the government agency was forced to review its decision
> following complaints from experts.
>
> Dr Joe Collier, editor of the Drug and Therapeutic Bulletin, which first
> raised concerns about the Yasmin ad, is calling for an inquiry into how
the
> MCA operates. He welcomed the new research and called for all ads to be
> vetted before publication.
>
> 'Yasmin is a very good example of where the evidence quoted doesn't
support
> the claims.
>
> 'This is a very important paper. We know that billions of pounds are spent
> each year on adverts so one assumes that these influence doctors. We need
to
> know how the MCA vets ads. The Yasmin case shows how misleading adverts
can
> pass through the Medicines Control Agency.
>
> 'The MCA should pre-vet all adverts. At the moment we think they are
checked
> randomly but we have no idea how it is done because the MCA will not tell
> us.
>
> 'The MCA's slowness and secrecy are wholly unacceptable, particularly
since
> huge amounts of taxpayers' money may have been inappropriately spent on
> Yasmin due to the exaggerated claims made by Schering.
>
> 'The MCA's position is untenable and demands an inquiry. We have never
found
> out what went wrong with the Yasmin ad -- why the MCA failed to notice
that
> it was making false claims in the first place. We need to know that they
> have improved things.'
>
> The MCA said in a statement that it routinely monitors adverts for medical
> products. The agency claims it takes action 'as necessary' and last year
> forced around 50 adverts to be amended or withdrawn.
>
> The MCA added: 'The degree of regulatory scrutiny of individual
> advertisements varies but we pick up a number of potential breaches of the
> regulations in this way. Advertising is not submitted to the MCA for
> pre-approval, nor is it required to be.'
>
>
>
>
>