Comments on: Drug Safety, Social Media & A Universal Symbol

By: Adderall effects

Adderall effects — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:27:23 +0000

The Universal Symbol a “useful idea”, maybe useful for the FDA, not so much for the American Public.

By: pharmavet

pharmavet — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:57:05 +0000

Even the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval only carries a two-year limited warranty on its certified products. Maybe the FDA/Pharma logo should also carry a 2-year limited warranty in case the product kills you after the second year of use.

These “seals” are completely bogus. I used to belong to the American Heart Association, and therefore know that if a company wanted its products to be deemed “heart-healthy” (you know, those cute little heart shaped logos on packages), all it had to do was make a nice contribution to the AHA. Has as much merit as “certified” automobile parts from ex-US that the auto insurers will only reimburse you for aftern you’ve had a wreck.

By: patrons99

patrons99 — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:37:49 +0000

OMG! Stephany’s link above is absolutely priceless! It’s a very close horse race, indeed. Probably a photo finish. Too close to call.

By: vince

vince — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:08:24 +0000

“Bozo the clown” would seems a better symbol” balanced information and drug marketing simply don’t mix. Preemption is where the drug companies really want to go.

By: New York liposuctions

New York liposuctions — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:45:51 +0000

Basically Pharma wants to use the FDA symbol as another legal/public relations/marketing layer for their next Avandia, Seroquel etc. The problem is that one person, not so long ago, said that a CDER page was replaced by the drug company product information page.

By: Condor

Condor — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:19:50 +0000

Meant to type “WHOre” houses (warehouses) in that second line of ‘graph two. . . Dag.

Namaste

By: Condor

Condor — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:18:17 +0000

On substance — I remain unclear why companies NEED to be able to tweet about FDA-regulated drugs.

Next, should we allow “cold calls” — via telemarketing style cubicle-seascapes (in wharehouses in New Jersey), from which the companies could call the last 100,000 names to see their doctors about cholesterol — and direct pitch Vytorin, Crestor or Lipitor via a scripted phone call?????

This is my old-fashioned question:

Where is the ENTITLEMENT to make unsolicited sales calls (electronically — via Twitter; or by telephone, via a telemarketing firm-style approach) direct to CONSUMERS of drugs they MUST see their doctors to obtain????

Serious question.

[By the way, I am also well-vesed in the development of the path of the law -- the jurisprudence -- surrounding commercial speech, and that one doesn't really fly for me, here. This is akin to a telemarketing call. Why should we countenance that?]

Safety alerts via Twitter would be a horse of a different color.

Namaste

By: Condor

Condor — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:52:24 +0000

I appear here to echo JiM’s and JaT’s — “the only [medicines] endorsed by a clown — CanyonArrow!”

HILARIOUS — sad, but hilarious!

Hopefully, I get back to offer something more substantive, later this evening — gotta’ jet.

Namaste

By: JaT

JaT — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:41:11 +0000

Perfect graphic, Ed.

The problem is that one person, not so long ago, said that a CDER page was replaced by (or redirected her to?) the drug company product information page. I took her to mean that they lost information needed to do research.

And also- this is like preemption without official preemption.

By: elmore

elmore — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:00:03 +0000

What about requiring links to both the benefits and the risks? The ads could be limited to the name of the drug and what it treats.