October 3, 2004
CHEAPER, BLUNTER, DUMBER:
Promise and Peril of Vioxx Cast Harsher Light on New Drugs (David Brown, October 3, 2004, Washington Post)
The abrupt withdrawal last week of the best-selling painkiller Vioxx is an event rich in ironies and lessons that may ultimately lead to a rethinking of the way drug safety is evaluated in the United States. [...]Vioxx's downfall is likely to spur other changes as well, experts said.
It may lead doctors and patients to take a fresh look at the consequences of direct-to-consumer advertising, the root of much of Vioxx's enormous popularity in a field full of competing pain relievers. It may also dampen some of the enthusiasm for expensive, targeted, "smart" drugs, which sometimes turn out to be no better -- or in Vioxx's case, actually worse -- than their cheaper, blunter, dumber ancestors.
The "smarter" we get the more often it turns out we know no better -- or actually know less -- than our cheaper, blunter, dumber ancestors. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 3, 2004 10:31 AM
Actually, with all the FDA-mandated disclaimers and listing of side effects at the end of the commercials, I'm surprised direct-to-consumer marketing has been so successful, since many of the products come across as little-pill-bottles-of-death, once the announcer finishes listing all the horrific things that the medication has some chance of causing (though I supposed on TV, viewers may just see the pretty images and tune out the voice. When they advertize the same medications on radio, it's hard not to notice the drugs are not the flawless path to well-being).
Posted by: John at October 3, 2004 11:00 AMJohn:
Ever notice that the erectile dysfunction disclaimer includes that bit about erections lasting more than four hours or whatever? Is that a disclaimer or a pitch?
Posted by: oj at October 3, 2004 11:12 AMOJ --
They debuted the commerical in the middle of Super Bowl XXXVIII, in front of 100 million men flush with the intoxicant of the day and shortly after Janet Jackson's peep show. I'm surprised they didn't start the commercial with the disclaimer.
Posted by: John at October 3, 2004 12:20 PMBut are there 100 million women ready to harvest the benefits of Viagra and Cialis? That should be the biggest disclaimer of all.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 3, 2004 3:29 PMJohn
It's a matter of perspective. If you are healthy, the list of side effects gives you pause. If you were sick, you'd be focusing on what the drug would do to make you feel better.
Posted by: Chris B at October 3, 2004 5:56 PMJim:
The law of unintended causes might result in those 100 million middle-aged women actually responding to their husbands' re-awakened sexual drive...with someone else.
Posted by: Peter B at October 3, 2004 8:48 PMI can't even tell what half of these drug commercials are selling. It's all people running in fields of flowers, powergliding, or hugging their spouse. I can usually distinguish the blatant sex appeals of the viagra-supplements, but I have no idea what the others are for.
My favorite side effect heard on the disclaimer is "fatal hemorraging."
Posted by: Chris Durnell at October 4, 2004 11:41 AMWhat always gets me about a lot of the direct-to-consumer advertising is the completely inappropriate use of Sixties pop music. Like Mungojerrie's "In the Summertime" -- do any of you remember the original lyrics?
For direct-to-consumer "manhood enhancer" drug ads, you can NOT get creepier than Bob the Tetanus Boy. (I can't see that "Mr. Sardonicus" grimace without wondering if the "secret ingredients" in the pill he's hawking are tetanospasmin & strychnine...)
Posted by: Ken at October 4, 2004 5:05 PM