Help People Stop Being Injured or Dying Every Day from Dangerous Prescription Drugs
- by: Cee Clark
- recipient: U.S. Congress
People are only human and they want to believe that a pill will magically cure them, make them look better or feel better.
In 1997, the FDA okayed drug ads on TV, which allowed pharmaceutical companies to make claims about their drugs that aren't true and downplay the negative effects of their pills. To this day, there are only two countries who allow drug ads on TV: the United States and New Zealand. Can a country as great as ours continue to allow this travesty?
A case in point is Vioxx. Vioxx was popularized mainly by the image of Dorothy Hamill lacing up her skates and gliding over the ice despite her osteoarthritis, all because of Vioxx. Merck had to take Vioxx off the market because even while the commercials were running, they were receiving alarming reports that the millions of patients who responded to the ad and demanded their doctors prescibe Vioxx were risking stroke or serious heart problems.
Another example is AstraZeneca’s Crestor. One commercial featured a "doctor" who claimed he prescribed the cholesterol drug when “diet and exercise alone aren’t enough.” Despite lawsuits filed in California state court for such side effects as sudden cardiac death, kidney damage and muscle disorders, new Crestor commercials continued to air.
One of the newest blood thinners is Xarelto (rivaroxaban), approved by the FDA in July 2011. Xarelto is approved for use after knee and hip replacement surgery to reduce the risk of blood clots. In November 2011, the drug’s indications were expanded to include atrial fibrillation (AF).
There is no bleeding antidote for Xarelto, which means users of the drug can experience dangerous, uncontrollable bleeding events. Additionally, since the drug was fast-tracked, unknown side effects may also be putting patients at risk. (http://www.drugwatch.com/dangerous-drugs.php)
New drugs are being fast-tracked without sufficient study, or information about negative effects are being withheld.
Physicians agree: Kurt C. Stange, MD, PhD, Professor of Family Medicine, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Oncology, and Sociology at Case Western Reserve University, stated the following in his 2007 editorial "Time to Ban Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Marketing," available at www.anfammed.org:
"It is time to ban direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs. The current US system of pharmaceutical company self-monitoring and Food and Drug Administration oversight is not working. Moreover, it cannot realistically be expected to work. A ban is needed to protect the public's health and the quality of healthcare...
DTC ads manipulate the patient’s agenda and steal precious time away from an evidence-based primary care clinician agenda that is attempting to promote healthy behavior, screen for early-stage treatable disease, and address mental health.
...Discussing why the advertised drug is not the best option for a particular patient may mean that a mammogram is not ordered, an important health behavior is not discussed, a family matter is not brought up... The clinician is put in the role of gatekeeper for the advertised commodity rather than a gateway for prioritizing health care based on the concerns of patients and the science-based recommendations for preventative, chronic disease, mental health, and family care...
Only a ban will work. The impossibility of regulating complex overt and covert multichannel messages with both rational and emotional appeals, the power imbalance between the public good and the commercial imperative, the difficulty of anticipating ads’ unintended consequences, and the availability of less-biased sources of information and motivation all argue for totally proscribing DTC ads.
As representatives of the people, how can you allow profits to be placed above the health of Americans?
Sign PetitionSign PetitionIn 1997, the FDA okayed drug ads on TV, which allowed pharmaceutical companies to make claims about their drugs that aren't true and downplay the negative effects of their pills. To this day, there are only two countries who allow drug ads on TV: the United States and New Zealand. Can a country as great as ours continue to allow this travesty?
A case in point is Vioxx. Vioxx was popularized mainly by the image of Dorothy Hamill lacing up her skates and gliding over the ice despite her osteoarthritis, all because of Vioxx. Merck had to take Vioxx off the market because even while the commercials were running, they were receiving alarming reports that the millions of patients who responded to the ad and demanded their doctors prescibe Vioxx were risking stroke or serious heart problems.
Another example is AstraZeneca’s Crestor. One commercial featured a "doctor" who claimed he prescribed the cholesterol drug when “diet and exercise alone aren’t enough.” Despite lawsuits filed in California state court for such side effects as sudden cardiac death, kidney damage and muscle disorders, new Crestor commercials continued to air.
One of the newest blood thinners is Xarelto (rivaroxaban), approved by the FDA in July 2011. Xarelto is approved for use after knee and hip replacement surgery to reduce the risk of blood clots. In November 2011, the drug’s indications were expanded to include atrial fibrillation (AF).
There is no bleeding antidote for Xarelto, which means users of the drug can experience dangerous, uncontrollable bleeding events. Additionally, since the drug was fast-tracked, unknown side effects may also be putting patients at risk. (http://www.drugwatch.com/dangerous-drugs.php)
New drugs are being fast-tracked without sufficient study, or information about negative effects are being withheld.
Physicians agree: Kurt C. Stange, MD, PhD, Professor of Family Medicine, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Oncology, and Sociology at Case Western Reserve University, stated the following in his 2007 editorial "Time to Ban Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Marketing," available at www.anfammed.org:
"It is time to ban direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs. The current US system of pharmaceutical company self-monitoring and Food and Drug Administration oversight is not working. Moreover, it cannot realistically be expected to work. A ban is needed to protect the public's health and the quality of healthcare...
DTC ads manipulate the patient’s agenda and steal precious time away from an evidence-based primary care clinician agenda that is attempting to promote healthy behavior, screen for early-stage treatable disease, and address mental health.
...Discussing why the advertised drug is not the best option for a particular patient may mean that a mammogram is not ordered, an important health behavior is not discussed, a family matter is not brought up... The clinician is put in the role of gatekeeper for the advertised commodity rather than a gateway for prioritizing health care based on the concerns of patients and the science-based recommendations for preventative, chronic disease, mental health, and family care...
Only a ban will work. The impossibility of regulating complex overt and covert multichannel messages with both rational and emotional appeals, the power imbalance between the public good and the commercial imperative, the difficulty of anticipating ads’ unintended consequences, and the availability of less-biased sources of information and motivation all argue for totally proscribing DTC ads.
As representatives of the people, how can you allow profits to be placed above the health of Americans?
See more petitions:
You have JavaScript disabled. Without it, our site might not function properly.
By signing, you accept Care2's Terms of Service.
You can unsub at any time here.
Having problems signing this? Let us know.