You people really need to learn the difference between legitimate concerns and personal injury attorneys' hot air...

Research for what? More drugs that consume an astronomical advertising budget to convince me that I need them?

Maybe instead of spending all that money on advertising, they should be spending it on educating our medical proffessionals. Or on research. I guess I feel like the doctors are the ones that should convincing me that I need drugs, and it should based on my medical need rather than someone's profit margin or the effectiveness of their advertising campaign. Besides, I find it scary that drug research and development is driven by what will be the most profitable rather than what will have the largest medical impact.

"My HMO Tried to Kill Me!"


I had to take a second look at that. Thought it read:

"My HOMO Tried to Kill Me!"

Does that remind you of a story?

You have several concerns, but you didn't address my question at all.

You believe drugs should be handed out when people are ill. How do you propose to fund such an endeavor?

Excuse me? When did I say anything should be handed out? Put words in people's mouths much? Apparently you've misinterpreted what I've said.

I don't know how they should pay for research. I won't even pretend to understand how pharmaceutical companies handle that kind of thing. I do know that drugs have been researched and developed for ages without these mass marketing campaigns and without it being a financial jackpot for the companies involved. I'm not saying these guys shouldn't make money. I just think there's something morally lacking in the way they've decided to increase their profit margin. They've neglected the effort to make medical milestones, in the name of creating drugs that will they can market to the everyday Joe to cure illnesses that are mild at best and non-existant at worst.

Evidently, I did. You said:


"Drugs shouldn't be "sold", they should be a product medical neccessity."

If they shouldn't be sold, then they should be handed out, right?

Unless, you meant they shouldn't be marketed, which is wrong (IMO) as well. If one drug does the same as another and costs less, I want to know about it. If one drug is similar to another and has either benefits or detriments then I want to know about it. That is the jist of advertising.


Now, I agree that Pharmys are out of control, but I don't think we should exclude them from free enterprise.

I guess the quotation marks didn't make it clear that I wasn't referring to "sold" in the literal or common sense. I meant sold as in marketed or advertised. As in "I'm going to sell you on an idea".

It just seems wrong that the company that makes money off of this drug is the same company that is trying to convince me that I need it. It's not a Big Mac or a pair of Nikes. It's preying on a person's poor health or fear of poor health, and the emotions that go with it. I'm just of the opinion that the only one that should be convincing me to take a certain drug is the doctor who has my health in his best interest.

I'm not so naive to think that they don't market (sell) their drugs to doctors either. I am however, still naive enough to believe that my doctor won't prescribe me a drug simply because they had an excellent marketing strategy. It's just the idea that these drug companies have created a mindset where people are going into a doctor's office already thinking they know what they need in terms of prescription medicine. Besides, mass-marketing may give people a false impression of what works better. Someone might say, Drug X is on TV all of the time, they must be doing well and it must be more effective than Drug Y that I've barely heard of. Then they go online and order Drug X based on that.

I think you answered your own question. People need medication when they are sick. They don't need it pimped to them on tv every night during the 6 o'clock news. There's a pill for everything anymore, a huge problem with todays society IMO.

I don't think I would be that naive. Doctors get a good portion of their on-going education/ new information from Big Pharma. There is also a lot of evidence that there are incentives to prescribe new medicines, even though there are older, cheaper (read non-patented) medicines available that are just as effective.

Then ban all over the counter meds and advertising. After all, you don't "need" OTC drugs

The disclaimers alone should be enough to discourage anyone. They call everything a disease now so you feel you need a medicine to deal with it. Somehow recently acid indegestion got tuned into acid reflux DISEASE. I love the disclaimers though.

In some cases side effects including a bloody nose, stomach cramps, diarrhea, vomiting and even death have occured from using this product so let your physician know if you have any problems taking this medication. People who are too short, too tall, have high blood pressure, liver of kidney problems or people who drink alchohol or caffeinated beverages are discouraged form using this product.

Good god what else do you need to know not to stick that shit in your body? Problem is people don't question their doctors they just take their advice and the pill of the day. You ultimately are responsible for your own health, smarten up and figure out how to correct the problem instead of taking your doctors drug of the day to treat the symptom. JMO

I remember a few years ago there was ad for an anti-anxiety drug and one of the side effects was "uncontrollable oily stools". :eek:

Personally, I think that little side effect would counter-act the drug.

ROFL

Yeah... that would tend to cause anxiety, wouldn't it.

I hate oily stools.

Thye can cause you to slip off and hit your head on the bathroom floor.