Absolutely! The drug makers are careful to list all the side effects, so that’s not the problem. There is no useful purpose served by the public being told to “Ask your doctor about XYZery!” in a TV ad. The practice should be banned.
Until November 1974, drug ads played upbeat music during the listing of side effects to distract viewers. FDA put a stop to that. I believe Reshma Ramachandran had something to do with that.
You should propose something like this to be in Sensible Medicine--I think it has around 90,000 readers.
I have cable and watch CNN, MSMBC and sometimes Fox News run adds for prescription drugs. I watch them because that is the price of having media channels stay in business. The happy, dancing people are a little annoying, but more importantly, the potential side effects of the drugs are spoken a little too quickly for me. It's helpful to know about new medications to treat various conditions so why ban them if they are not misleading? Most Americans are not stupid and easily fooled by adds. Furthermore, we must be careful not to further erode free speech guarntees written into our Constitution.
Think of it this way: Only a doctor can prescribe a drug. Advertising is an overt attempt to influence the practice of medicine by an actor -- a corporation -- that doesn't have a license to practice medicine. Why should we allow someone without a license to do that? There are many cases where speech is limited because it violates some other social good: (public order -- you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater; national security -- you can't reveal troop movements during wartime; and public health -- you can't practice medicine, which inevitably involves offering specific guidance on how to treat a disease, without a license). I think a strong legal argument could be made that drug ads are not the same as "corporate speech" but an attempt to influence the practice by an unlicensed entity, which Congress would have the right to make illegal. This, in my view, would not violate the Supreme Court decision giving corporations free speech rights.
I had to laugh at this for two reasons: first, it is so ironic when people who support a felon and pathological liar who admits he couldn't care less about the country's problems call ANYONE deranged. Second, a guy clocked at 30,000+ lies in just 4 years is far more likely to say the sky is green.
I appreciate such a rapid confirmation of the irony mentioned: one needs only to point out some facts and the response is more fact free nonsense (and now with some added fact free "whaddabout" as a bonus). Feel free to believe I am the deranged one. LOL
While at it, ban Medicare Advantage Ads for using aging celebrities to mislead senior citizens about the real disadvantages of these plans.
Absolutely! The drug makers are careful to list all the side effects, so that’s not the problem. There is no useful purpose served by the public being told to “Ask your doctor about XYZery!” in a TV ad. The practice should be banned.
Until November 1974, drug ads played upbeat music during the listing of side effects to distract viewers. FDA put a stop to that. I believe Reshma Ramachandran had something to do with that.
You should propose something like this to be in Sensible Medicine--I think it has around 90,000 readers.
I have cable and watch CNN, MSMBC and sometimes Fox News run adds for prescription drugs. I watch them because that is the price of having media channels stay in business. The happy, dancing people are a little annoying, but more importantly, the potential side effects of the drugs are spoken a little too quickly for me. It's helpful to know about new medications to treat various conditions so why ban them if they are not misleading? Most Americans are not stupid and easily fooled by adds. Furthermore, we must be careful not to further erode free speech guarntees written into our Constitution.
Think of it this way: Only a doctor can prescribe a drug. Advertising is an overt attempt to influence the practice of medicine by an actor -- a corporation -- that doesn't have a license to practice medicine. Why should we allow someone without a license to do that? There are many cases where speech is limited because it violates some other social good: (public order -- you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater; national security -- you can't reveal troop movements during wartime; and public health -- you can't practice medicine, which inevitably involves offering specific guidance on how to treat a disease, without a license). I think a strong legal argument could be made that drug ads are not the same as "corporate speech" but an attempt to influence the practice by an unlicensed entity, which Congress would have the right to make illegal. This, in my view, would not violate the Supreme Court decision giving corporations free speech rights.
I had to laugh at this for two reasons: first, it is so ironic when people who support a felon and pathological liar who admits he couldn't care less about the country's problems call ANYONE deranged. Second, a guy clocked at 30,000+ lies in just 4 years is far more likely to say the sky is green.
CK said gay people should be "stoned to death," quoting Leviticus. That's divine love and forgiveness for you. God will forgive him thank God.
Other lovely loving CK quotes:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs_n_68c448c1e4b0b3dca95e9cd0?utm_source=cordial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hp-us-reg-morning-email_2025-09-15&utm_term=us-morning-email&email_hash=00b6ff00b800a2f4eec56435994273adddbd6bd5
Mahatma Gandhi said “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
I appreciate such a rapid confirmation of the irony mentioned: one needs only to point out some facts and the response is more fact free nonsense (and now with some added fact free "whaddabout" as a bonus). Feel free to believe I am the deranged one. LOL