Watch The Congressional DTC Hearing Right Here!!
May 8th, 2008 12:26 pm
Yes, we are trying something new today. With the enormous interest in DTC ads, in general, and the controversies surrounding the Lipitor and Vytorin advertising, in particular, we thought you would enjoy watching the hearing as it takes place.
Not only that - special just for you - we are including another feature that allows you to write some comments as the events unfold. For instance, if Deepak Khanna, senior vp of the Merck/Schering-Plough joint venture says something incredible, you can chime in. Sounds like fun, yes? Here’s the witness list. It’s over now - hope you enjoyed it. We’ll try it again some time.
The hearing is now over, and our live stream has ended. We’ll post archived video when it becomes available. This is the live recap as the hearing was going on.
| Live Blog: | Hearing on DTC Advertising | (05/08/2008) Powered by: CoveritLive |
|
10:03
|
pharmalot - Hi, There’s no feed yet, which explains the lack of activity on the little screen. But stay tuned…. |
|
10:06
|
Pharmalot Tech Guy - The hearing has started, if you’re not seeing anything, be sure to hit play. |
|
10:09
|
Pharmalot Tech Guy - Anybody having trouble viewing the feed? |
|
10:13
|
pharmalot - Hi, we hope you can see and hear this. We are monitoring the feed for any bugs. |
|
10:16
|
pharmalot - If you have a blank screen, just click on “Launch video player in another window” and you should be fine. Again, we are working on any bugs. This is a bit of an experiment for us. Thanks |
|
10:32
|
[Comment From Chris] Will this hearing be available for viewing afterwards? |
|
10:33
|
pharmalot - Good question, Chris. I will try to get an answer for you. |
|
10:34
|
[Comment From Guest] yes getting an x in the view box |
|
10:36
|
[Comment From condor] Ah, live hearings — now one hour recess! |
|
10:37
|
pharmalot - We have a one-hour recess, so grab some water or coffee or stretch your legs and come back at 11:30 EST |
|
11:42
|
Pharmalot Tech Guy - We’re still waiting for the hearing to resume . Â . Â . |
|
12:09
|
Pharmalot Tech Guy - Still waiting here, you’ll see stuff start up again at the same time that we do. |
|
12:28
|
Pharmalot Tech Guy - Looks like we’re back on, hit play if you’re not seeing anything. |
|
12:29
|
Pharmalot Tech Guy - Good, they apologized for the delay. |
|
12:42
|
pharmalot - You need sixth-grade education to understand benefits, but a ninth-grade education to understand the risks. So maybe we should ask to be treated like fifth graders across the board? |
|
12:47
|
pharmalot - Â Duke University linguist Ruth Day, who lectures on the psychology of language, is testifying for those of you just tuning in. |
|
1:14
|
pharmalot - okay, Ruth Day is done testifying. now, we’re moving on to a new group of people who will testify - Nancy Neilsen, president-elect of the American Medical Association, Marcia Crosse of the Government Accountability Office and Mollyann Brodie, vp opinion and media research at the Kaiser Family Foundation…. Nielsen is up first |
|
1:24
|
pharmalot - Now, its Marcia Crosse’s turn to speak |
|
1:24
|
[Comment From Guest] Rep. Shimkus (R-IL) receives lots of Medi-PAC money! — and he’s in FAVOR of “commercial speech” to CONSUMERS, for Pharma: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/2007_H2IL20042 — lots of PAC money, there! |
|
1:24
|
[Comment From condor] Backing up to the PRO-PHARMA remarks of Rep. Shimkus (R-IL) — he received big donations from Merck, Pfizer, Smith-Kline-Beecham, Novartis and others. Interesting, no? — http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/2007_H2IL20042 |
|
1:24
|
[Comment From condor] Lipitor cognitive dissonance of advertising audiences, now being featured. . . . |
|
1:25
|
[Comment From condor] Stupak cleaning up here! 8 May 08, 11:56 condor: Questions: Source of these techniques? |
|
1:25
|
[Comment From Guest] condor: Whitfield gets Abbott PAC money, SKB PAC Merck, Novartis Lilly PACs donations! 8 May 08, 12:05 condor: Rep. Whitfield (R-KY) questioning. . . . |
|
1:25
|
[Comment From Guest] Whitfield — Are we getting TOO MUCH risk info??! |
|
1:25
|
[Comment From Guest] Stupak — What matters is what is retained by the consumer. |
|
1:25
|
[Comment From Alan] I find it interesting that she is willing to help and present for the FDA but she said she is not willing to work with the companies who are responsible for the advertising? How will companies benefit from her work if she won’t work with them? |
|
1:25
|
[Comment From Guest] Reuters story up on Hearings thus far: http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080508/drugs_advertising.html?.v=1 |
|
1:25
|
[Comment From Guest] “It appears that we need to enforce significant restrictions on DTC (direct-to-consumer) ads to protect American consumers from manipulative commercials designed to mislead and deceive for the profit of pharmaceutical companies,” said Stupak, head of the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce investigative panel. The Michigan Democrat said Congress should consider whether ads promoting medicines should be allowed to continue to target consumers in the United States, the only country that allows such marketing except for New Zealand. “Pharmaceutical companies should consider it a privilege to be allowed to air DTC ads in this country,” he said, adding: “We should make sure that pharmaceuticals companies conduct themselves responsibly.” |
|
1:26
|
pharmalot - Hi folks, sorry for the delays in posting your comments. Yours truly is trying to get up to speed… |
|
1:27
|
[Comment From condor] FDA letters now take six months to get out, due to new policies. . . . YIKES! |
|
1:28
|
[Comment From condor] In fact, only two came out last year (Vytorin was one of them!) |
|
1:29
|
pharmalot - Six years later, the amount of time to draft letters is taking even longer. Hmmm… |
|
1:30
|
[Comment From condor] Only US and New Zealand allow DTC for Pharma. . . . WOW! |
|
1:32
|
pharmalot - She didn’t know it was supposed to be Jarvik? |
|
1:32
|
[Comment From condor] To be fair, Rep. Stupak (D-MI) gets Schering Plough PAC money. |
|
1:32
|
[Comment From condor] Wild — is she listening? |
|
1:34
|
[Comment From condor] Dr. Nielsen — 48% of public feels “about right amount of regulation” of DTC Ads. . . . |
|
1:39
|
[Comment From condor] Rep. Shimkus (R-IL) receives all sorts of Pharma PAC money |
|
1:39
|
[Comment From condor] Now Shimkus is being belligerent. . . . he is bullying the witness. |
|
1:41
|
[Comment From guest] Shimkus can’t seem to put together a sentence. |
|
1:41
|
[Comment From condor] Do we see any connection here? Enquiring minds would like to know. . . . |
|
1:44
|
[Comment From condor] Rep. barton (R-TX) — gets PAC money from Bayer, among others. . . . http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/H2TX31028 |
|
1:46
|
[Comment From condor] Rep. Barton thinks it is “no priority”! — any connection? |
|
1:47
|
pharmalot - Joe Barton, Texas Republican, says overseas inspections are more important than DTC. But who thinks this is a zero sum game? Anyway, Congress is looking into FDA oversight of foreign plants, so the point is to - what? - distract attention from DTC issues? Â |
|
1:47
|
[Comment From Alan] Condor, you have made your point, move on. |
|
1:47
|
[Comment From condor] Dag! — AFK for 20 minutes — SORRY |
|
1:47
|
[Comment From condor] Good-day, Alan! |
|
1:49
|
[Comment From condor] Keep it spinnin’ — in good karma, Ed! |
|
1:51
|
pharmalot -
 |
|
1:52
|
[Comment From new listener] Do you think anyone will talk about the merits of DTC and the fact that it enables patients who might otherwise NOT talk with their doctor to finally do so? |
|
1:52
|
pharmalot - I think that came up, but honestly, I can’t remember who made that point. |
|
1:53
|
[Comment From new listener] Will there be a transcript of this and if so, will you post it? |
|
1:53
|
pharmalot - If there is, I will endeavor to obtain a link |
|
1:54
|
[Comment From Greg] Is this the same Joe Barton that hauled federal environmental scientists before Congress and subpeoned all of their published papers then bullied them so inappropriately about their support of global warming theories that the National Academy of Scientists protested the hearings in writing? His concern China’s trade poisoning |
|
1:54
|
pharmalot - I know of only one Joe Barton is a Texas Republican on this committee…. |
|
1:55
|
[Comment From Greg] is touching. |
|
2:05
|
[Comment From Guest] great question, stupak! |
|
2:05
|
[Comment From guest] Stupak is an idiot. Shouldn’t he know what the cost of Vytorin is? Shouldn’t he also be citing the cost to the patient of generic Zocor ? |
|
2:07
|
[Comment From Mike] Why doesn’t one of these just come out and say the Bush Administration intentionally slowed down the process because they are in Pharma’s pocket. |
|
2:11
|
[Comment From Guest] What ailment are Cocoa Puffs indicated for??? |
|
2:11
|
[Comment From Greg] Doctors - the gatekeepers of consumer protection. What planet is he on? |
|
2:13
|
[Comment From guest] “Hired hucksters”? That certainly provides sufficient insight into her bias. |
|
2:14
|
pharmalot - Okay, if you’re just tuning in, the next group is coming to the witness table….Jim Sage at Pfizer, Deepak Khanna at Merck/Schering-Plough’s joint venture, and Kim Taylor from J&J’s Ortho-Biotech… |
|
2:15
|
pharmalot - J&J’s Taylor has ‘outside counsel’ with her today |
|
2:15
|
[Comment From condor] SHOW-TIME! I am back, and yes the transcripts will turn up on the committee’s website, eventually — two or three weeks. . . . |
|
2:17
|
[Comment From hass] Really enjoying this, you’re doing great. |
|
2:18
|
[Comment From condor] Lipitor commercial INCOMING, now. |
|
2:19
|
[Comment From Quentin] …when diet and exercise are not enough… |
|
2:20
|
[Comment From condor] Dr. Jarvik — he can really ROW ROW ROW — Lipitor ashore! Heh! |
|
2:22
|
[Comment From Greg] …BRB - Montel Williams just showed up in the Phrma bus to help me pay for my Parkinsoon’s meds… |
|
2:22
|
[Comment From condor] Thhis is encouraging, “diet and exercise” FIRST — per SGP/MRK J/V exec. |
|
2:23
|
[Comment From Guest] Good point condor - is that in their ads? |
|
2:24
|
[Comment From condor] As to LD levels — the question is whether Vytorin’s WAY of dropping LDL makes any difference to outcomes — heart attacks, etc. It MAY not. |
|
2:25
|
[Comment From condor] Nope — “diet and exercise” ONLY appeared prominently after April 26, 2008 in the Ads — after the FDA sent a “may be misleading” letter (post ENHANCE). |
|
2:25
|
[Comment From guest] It is in their ads, as it is with all statins. |
|
2:26
|
[Comment From condor] Links and cites on file at my site — the highlighting of this is ALL NEW! |
|
2:26
|
[Comment From guest] they have not had DTC advertising since the ENHANCE data was made available in January. |
|
2:26
|
[Comment From condor] Have you looked at the Vytorin website??? |
|
2:28
|
[Comment From condor] It was revamped on April 26, 2008 — take a look: |
|
2:28
|
[Comment From condor] http://shearlingsplowed.blogspot.com/2008/04/remember-january-23-2008-fda-mandates.html |
|
2:28
|
[Comment From guest] You mean where is says - “Diet and exercise are important parts of lowering cholesterol”, that website ? |
|
2:30
|
[Comment From condor] Yes. I blogged this extensively. Cheers! |
|
2:33
|
pharmalot - Here come the questions… |
|
2:36
|
[Comment From condor] Research from Pfizer: was it clear that Jarvik was a PAID endorser? |
|
2:36
|
[Comment From condor] Rep. Stupak is grilling the Pfizer-guy. This is what happens when one is UNDER OATH, and tries “shade the truth” of things. |
|
2:36
|
[Comment From Greg] perception of physicians? or consumers? |
|
2:37
|
[Comment From condor] Don’t shade the truth — NOTA BENE, to ALL witnesses. |
|
2:37
|
[Comment From Atlex] What a shock?!? Jarvik was paid. |
|
2:38
|
[Comment From condor] Nice work by Rep. Stupak — was he a trial lawyer? Incisive! |
|
2:38
|
[Comment From Alan] This is a joke. Who watches a commercial and doesn’t think the spokesperson is paid? |
|
2:43
|
[Comment From condor] You are missing the point, Alan — this guy is shading the truth, and Rep. Stupak is feeding him to the dogs. |
|
2:43
|
[Comment From condor] Now the friendlies! — Rep. Simkus (R-IL). . . . |
|
2:44
|
[Comment From Atlex] How did he shade the truth? Do yo know what the truth is? |
|
2:45
|
[Comment From condor] He mentioned “multiple studies” on Lipitor, but offered only one. |
|
2:45
|
[Comment From condor] That is shading. |
|
2:46
|
[Comment From Atlex] Stupak wa trying to imply that one MDs comment in one research study was applicable to all MDs’ opinions. Stupak was shading the truth. |
|
2:48
|
[Comment From condor] I guess we’ll agree to disagree. Now, the m-SP guy — MYMAIN POINT. |
|
2:49
|
[Comment From condor] The FDA letter DOES SAY IT RELATES TO ENHANCE. |
|
2:49
|
[Comment From condor] How can he say that?! FDA wrote specifically about ENHANCE on January 23, 2008. |
|
2:50
|
[Comment From guest] and he said that they are working with the FDA to address this point - so what is your point? |
|
2:52
|
[Comment From condor] He said that FDA wasn’t focusing on ENHANCE — that is false — take a look: |
|
2:52
|
[Comment From condor] http://bp2.blogger.com/_M_OtwEgZgAk/SAANyzAV5QI/AAAAAAAABKM/TC3D0_SKC1U/s1600-h/SGP-FDA2.jpg |
|
2:52
|
[Comment From condor] and here: |
|
2:52
|
[Comment From condor] http://bp1.blogger.com/_M_OtwEgZgAk/SAANyjAV5PI/AAAAAAAABKE/eY09mW5rTi0/s1600-h/SGP-FDA1.jpg |
|
2:55
|
[Comment From guest] Will have to look at the transcript to see what he said, but I don’t recall that statement. He said that they are working with the FDA to address the concerns raised in the 1/23/08 letter, which was about 9 days after ENHANCE data was released. It is not questioned whether or not the FDA view has changed post ENHANCE, and he said as much. |
|
2:56
|
[Comment From guest] The language from your blog citations are now incorporated into the website. No TV advertising has been on air since ENHANCE. |
|
2:56
|
[Comment From condor] He said he did not KNOW why FDA had written. It was just before the part you mentions. That was what I heard. Just FYI. |
|
2:58
|
[Comment From guest] I did not hear that. |
|
2:59
|
[Comment From condor] Rep. Ferguson (R-NJ) gets PAC money from BMS, BD, CR Bard, Merck and JnJ. Just FYI. http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/H8NJ06118 |
|
3:00
|
[Comment From condor] Now, on thecurrent point — Rep. Dingell just pointed out the inaccuracy, and the M-SP guy straightened it out. |
|
3:01
|
[Comment From guest] Is there anyone on the panel that does NOT get PAC money from somebody? What is your point? |
|
3:01
|
[Comment From condor] I think I just heard him say that FDA was focused on ENHANCE on January 23, 2008. |
|
3:02
|
[Comment From guest] Someone probably gets PAC $$ from General Mills. Why don’t they talk about the commercials for Cheerios implying a benefit of lowering LDL-cholesterol by 4 points? |
|
3:02
|
[Comment From Greg] Good Cross-exam, Dingell |
|
3:03
|
[Comment From condor] Pharma Manufacturer Drug money. Very disproportionately given, and accepted by the Republican (friendly) questions. |
|
3:04
|
[Comment From Atlex] Actually, Pharma PAC money now goes about 50-50 R and D. |
|
3:04
|
[Comment From condor] I know more about oats — Cheerios — (GRAS — “generally recognized as safe”, in FDA-speak) than I do about Vytorin. DON’T you? |
|
3:06
|
[Comment From guest] There was NO safety concern in ENHANCE. |
|
3:06
|
[Comment From condor] Not on this Congressional Subcommittee, ATLEX — I did some looking, this morning. |
|
3:06
|
[Comment From guest] The issue is that there is NO evidence that lowering LDL-C by 4 points is beneficial, yet Cheerios certainly implies a benefit. |
|
3:06
|
[Comment From condor] Cheerios are not an FDA-licensed drug. QED. |
|
3:07
|
[Comment From Atlex] and your point is? Stupak has obvious bias for personal reasons. |
|
3:08
|
[Comment From condor] Yes or NO?! Doesn’t he understand contempt of congress is in peril!?! |
|
3:08
|
[Comment From Atlex] You’re joking, right. Contempt of Congress ofr what? |
|
3:08
|
[Comment From condor] I mean Khanna — above, to be clear. He better be careful. |
|
3:10
|
[Comment From condor] This is not high-school debate. Very dangerous line of hedging. |
|
3:10
|
[Comment From Atlex] He’s nowhere near any danger! |
|
3:10
|
[Comment From condor] False testimony. |
|
3:10
|
[Comment From B Martin] Condor, if you could lump more of your running commentary into 1 post, it’d be less distracting from the hearing itself. Thanks. |
|
3:11
|
[Comment From condor] BMartin — Okay. All these folks are under oath. This is like court testimony. That is my central point. |
|
3:14
|
pharmalot - Dingell - bring on the ceo’s….. Line ‘em up like a big tobacco hearing? |
|
3:14
|
[Comment From condor] Skinning to begin! Remember FA hearing of two weeks back — DINGELL in fine form! |
|
3:14
|
[Comment From condor] Dingell: Why wasn’t Hassan here? That is a good question. |
|
3:14
|
[Comment From condor] Pharmalot — DING! |
|
3:14
|
[Comment From guest] Dingell is grandstanding. |
|
3:17
|
pharmalot - The WSJ reported the DOJ wants a look at Vytorin? Hmm…. C’mon Bart - I believe that showed up on a couple of blogs earlier this week… |
|
3:17
|
[Comment From Greg] I’ll see your equivocation, and raise you a CEO hearing |
|
3:17
|
[Comment From pharmagossip] Yeah! Get the organ grinders here - not the monkeys!! |
|
3:17
|
[Comment From condor] WSJ! — DOJ — Way to go, Pharmalot! |
|
3:17
|
[Comment From condor] Pharmalot had it TWO DAYS AGO! |
|
3:19
|
[Comment From condor] Surrogate endpoints now on the HOT SEAT! Khanna is out of his league here. |
|
3:19
|
[Comment From Atlex] The subcommittee approved these folks to testify. The question from Dingell was grandstanding because he know that these folks couldn’t answer that question. He also knows that calling the CEOs is unlikely. |
|
3:20
|
[Comment From condor] Khanna is hurting his firms’ interests. He is now going to be IMPEACHED — Emails!!! |
|
3:23
|
[Comment From condor] Exhibit No. 19 — Vytorin Website. YIKES! |
|
3:23
|
[Comment From condor] Oops! Hey Khanna — FDA has scientists. |
|
3:23
|
[Comment From Guest] The ‘quality of data’ drum has beaten to a pulp at this point… |
|
3:24
|
[Comment From condor] But does it improve outcomes!? Rep. Ferguson is off base, and off-point here. |
|
3:31
|
[Comment From condor] Leading the witness. Clearly a friendly. |
|
3:31
|
[Comment From condor] Rep. Ferguson was just straining to change the timeline, to help M-SP’s J/V’s version — Khanna corrected him. Wow. |
|
3:31
|
[Comment From condor] Khanna — still sending in documents — but what is MISSING? |
|
3:33
|
[Comment From guest] Your government in action - 290,000 pages ????? |
|
3:33
|
[Comment From Atlex] More likely that the committee is still asking new questions regularly and the companies continue to respond to these requests. |
|
3:33
|
[Comment From condor] Of 290,000 pages, none studied adverse side effect understanding by consumers, per Pfizer. |
|
3:49
|
[Comment From condor] Isn’t that important? I think it is. |
|
3:49
|
[Comment From condor] JnJ exec. stepped in it on “off-label” use. Ouch. 20 Exhibits. |
|
3:49
|
[Comment From condor] Procrit was never approved for “off-label” indications. Rep. Stupak has her dead to rights on this one. |
|
3:49
|
[Comment From guest] Stupak is badgering |
|
3:50
|
[Comment From condor] Rep. Burgess (R-TX) takes PAC money from Amgen, HCA, JnJ, Merck, Medimmune, Novartis, Roche and Scheirng-Plough — http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/H2TX26093 |
|
3:51
|
[Comment From Greg] You mean I won’t be seeing a Viagra ad on “Blues Clues”? |
|
3:51
|
pharmalot - So what did this accomplish? |
|
3:53
|
[Comment From guest] Allows the Congressman to feel important, same as steroids in baseball and many, many other hearings. |
|
3:53
|
[Comment From Guest] it was um. . . . entertaining. I guess. But not much else. |
|
3:56
|
[Comment From James] And when was the last time a Congressional hearing accomplished anything? Iran-Contra? |
|
3:56
|
[Comment From Greg] Increased awareness and understanding of the issue to consumers and patients who don’t have the “inside baseball” connection with this issue. Transparency is generally good for consumers. |
|
3:59
|
Thank you for reading today.
Thousands of users. |
Dan
One sentence for a change: A TV is not a doctor.
Dan
Now for much more:
Lengthy read, so thank you if you took the time-
Your Doctor Is Not Your T.V.
Often, usually on television, one viewing will see an advertisement for some type of medication often- usually one involved in a large market sponsored by a big pharmaceutical company for a particular T.V. network. This is called direct to consumer advertising, and doctors would prefer they did not exist.
Since 1997, when the FDA relaxed regulations regarding this form of advertising. As a result, the popularity of the creation of such commercials has greatly increased. I understand that the pharmaceutical industry spends around 5 billion annually on this media source now. Normally, the creation of such a commercial becomes visible to the consumer within a year of the advertised med’s approval, which raises safety concerns. And involves money spent that could be applied to greater uses, but we are dealing with a corporation here. after all.
The purpose of DTC ads is not education, as advertising’s objective is to increase sales and grow the market, in this case, for a particular perceived medical condition or disease state. The intent of DTC advertising is to generate an emotional response from the viewer, such as fear or concern, that the viewer will then question as to whether they need to seek treatment for what may be an unconfirmed medical condition, or a real condition, for that matter.
DTC advertising is also a catalyst for and similar to disease mongering.
Disease mongering is the intentional creation of medical flaws through exaggeration and embellishments through media sources and propaganda, as often seen with DTC advertising. Yet the flaws may not be truly of a medical concern, yet these may be corporate creations of these questionable human ailments that do not require treatment, possibly. One of my favorites is the new indication for the use of an anti-depressant for some sort of social disorder. This used to be called introversion, a term created by Dr. Carl Yung. And it is a personality trait, not a medical disease. There are other questionable medical conditions claimed in the contents of DTC commercials, as the creators wish to grow the market for a particular, and possibly fictional, disease state. Then there is baldness treatments advertised. Lifestyle meds are not treatment meds for illnesses. The ED commercials, in my opinion, are the most unrealistic of them all. The actors look like marathon runners.
Also, DTC ads discuss only one treatment option, when likely several options exist for true medical disorders. This should be left to the discretion of the doctor, as they assess your health, not your television or another media source. That’s why most of the world does not conduct DTC advertising, with the exception of our country and New Zealand. When it is stated on DTC ads to ‘ask your doctor’, that basically means to go get this med.
Finally, DTC advertising and its ability to influence viewers to make their own assessment instead of a medical professional remains largely unregulated. People are prone to believe what they see and hear, regardless of whether or not it is actually true. Many, after viewing a DTC ad, seek out a doctor visit and request whatever product that was advertised, which makes things cumbersome for the doctor chosen for such a visit. So the doctor and patient relationship is altered in a negative way compared to what that relationship has been historically.
Medical information and claims of flawed health ailments should come from those in the medical field instead of the corporate world, as I’ve stated a few times so far. Perhaps this will save some over-prescribing, which will benefit everyone in the long term. And the Health Care System can regain control of their purpose by those who are qualified to have such control.
Dan Abshear
Insider
Thanks for this Ed. I’m watching it on “Shearlings got Plowed” - the only reason is that he has a “chat box” which allows simultaneous commenting.
condor
Thanks for being brave enough to try this, Ed!
It is working perfectly, now.
On my feed, Pharmagossip already stopped by, from across the pond.
This “free-community-tech” certainly has a wow factor, no?
But now we wait for floor votes to end.
condor
Wait! — INSIDER! — So does Ed!
Don’t diss my man, and his tech guy!
Insider
Sorry to both.
James
Great job with the live blogging, Ed. Nice addition.
Stupak scares me. This comment: “Pharmaceutical companies should consider it a privilege to be allowed to air DTC ads in this country,” he said, adding: “We should make sure that pharmaceuticals companies conduct themselves responsibly.”
I understand that there is great debate over the rights and responsibilities of commercial speech. I also understand that we have had pharma DTC ads in the US for a very short time, so it may be tough to argue that, when the framers created the First Amendment, they did so to ensure we would know cholesterol can come from steamed crab legs, as well as your aunt crabby Betty.
But to say “Pharmaceutical companies should consider it a privilege…(and) We should make sure that pharmaceuticals companies conduct themselves responsibly.” sounds like a direct path to the slippery slope. Yikes.