I agree, and I tried to acknowledge the point. I also found an ad that underscores the concern Rosenberg expresses, if you go to the jump page.

But there is irony here. Remember, drug ads have a safeguard, but drugmakers have chafed at the gatekeeping process. And while some violations caught by the FDA’s DDMAC may have been minor and/or unintentional over the years, others were clear violations that the agency criticized in harsh language (just see those warning letters).

So yes, safeguards and improvements are necessary and reasonable. But to use a bad cliche, this is an instance where a drugmaker is getting a dose of its own medicine.

As always, I appreciate hearing from you and want to thank you for stopping by again.

Cheers
ed

It might be a fun exercise to compare drug industry DTC ads with lawyer ads, however, there is a huge difference. No matter what one think s of drug industry ads, there is a well-trained healthcare professional standing in the way to protect the patient; plain and simple, the patient cannot get the drug without his/her physician’s consent. On the other hand, if the lawyers’ ads actually have the affect that this study suggests, the patient can take harmful action without the physician having the ability to intervene. This is particularly concerning in the area of affective disorders.

Of course, I don’t mean to suggest that pharm industry advertising is perfect, but it does have that built in safe guard.

Lew