I noticed the other day, while watching a TV advertisement, that drug companies are getting more comfortable talking about the side effects of the drugs they are promoting. At first blush it seems counter-productive. But, if you consider the inevitable litigation that will ensue, it's actually a very smart move. As we all know by now, people don't pay attention to warnings, so why not feature them prominently in TV ads?
Here's why this is a good idea. If the drug sounds enticing the potential consumer will focus only on the benefits, and downplay the side-effects. Some people will experience side-effects and sue the drug company. But when that happens the drug manufacturers can point to the TV ads and say 'geez, what else do you want us to do to inform you about side-effects?' A powerful argument, to be sure. Indeed, this new advertising strategy is so clever that even manufacturers of older drugs are using it. For example, note how an advertisement for this social anxiety drug briefly touts some benefits, but then gives a laborious list of side-effects.
Hey, I'm ready to try it myself.
As opposed to being a smart advertising ploy (which it still may well be as "side effect", if you will), I think they are required to divulge this type of info by law.
Posted by: | October 05, 2006 at 09:06 AM
Hilarious. One of my coworkers got that in an email last week. I loved "...may lead to pregnancy and may be a factor in getting your ass kicked..."!
Posted by: Sophmom | October 07, 2006 at 10:08 AM
As the first comment pointed out, they are required by law to disclose the side effects - unless it's a reminder advertisement.
http://slashstar.com/blogs/tim/archive/2006/10/10/Prescription-Drug-Advertising.aspx
So basically, this is why you saw the ads telling you to "ask your doctor if the purple pill is right for youw", without telling you what it actually did - no dosage information, no disclosure requirements.
Posted by: Tim Marman | October 10, 2006 at 03:01 PM
Okay, I understood that the drug companies were required to note side effects. I was trying to set up the joke, which was the link to the recording. Tequila is not a regulated drug, but it does have side effects ....such as making your clothes fall off.
Posted by: Ernie | October 10, 2006 at 03:44 PM
I know. AS my Dad always says, don't let facts get in the way of a good story. And yet, that's very hard for many of us in the legal profession or training for the legal profession.
That said, I had been meaning to blog about 21 CFR 202 for awhile. I think it's really quite curious that you can advertise a "purple pill" without saying what it's for (birth control? indigestion?) but ask soon as you suggest AT ALL what it's for you have to give the side effects. I just used your post as an excuse to blgo something that I've been meaning to do for awhile :)
Posted by: Tim Marman | October 10, 2006 at 10:49 PM
Eli Lilly 3Q 10% profit rise is nearly all from psyche drugs including zyprexa.
How have they schemed to squeeze more money from their zyprexa cash cow when pill production has actually gone down?
ANS-Eli Lilly profiteers have jacked up the price of zyprexa to the federal govt,from the Medicare D payouts.
Eli Lilly is a big drug company that puts profits over patients.
They covered up findings that their Zyprexa has a TEN times greater risk of causing type 2 diabetes
Only 9% of Americans trust big pharma,right around the same rating as tobacco companies.
Daniel Haszard Eli Lilly zyprexa drug caused my diabetes www.zyprexa-victims.com
Posted by: DannyHaszard | October 22, 2006 at 08:29 AM