@dsynadinos @rebeccawatson IMO, in a civilized country they wouldn't be able to advertise to the public. Anyway listing the side effects is part of the FDA rules for direct-to-consumer advertising. It got worse in the 90s when they relaxed that part. You k
Dangers and Opportunities of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising https://t.co/3WnKrkuhoA RX ads have only been prevalent for about 20-30 years. This type of ad, along with just as bad supplement ads, dominate cable news programming. And the crappy musical ea
@hicksticks2001 @michaeljknowles "...among 97 advertisements reviewed by authors, the quality of data presented was low—26% provided quantitative information for efficacy and benefit, 0% provided quantitative information on risks, and 13% promoted off-labe
@FreedomDogz @michaeljknowles "...among 97 advertisements reviewed by authors, the quality of data presented was low—26% provided quantitative information for efficacy and benefit, 0% provided quantitative information on risks, and 13% promoted off-label u
@f1xxxar Studies have repeatedly shown these ads drive up drug costs & often aren't fully transparent about risks. Also, they're pretty powerful in our overmedicated society: people who request drugs from drs after seeing ads get prescriptions far more
https://t.co/7JrC9VTiG1 (Journal of General Internal Medicine)
RT @doctorrubin: "Ask YOUR doctor about [pricey drug] to treat your moderate-to-severe [disease you don't have]." Amazing that we subsidiz…
"Ask YOUR doctor about [pricey drug] to treat your moderate-to-severe [disease you don't have]." Amazing that we subsidize this #advertising (https://t.co/J3MIKnimX3) despite its likely effect on increasing #drug costs (https://t.co/xTL68KQaKl and https:/
Dangers and Opportunities of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising https://t.co/HUvDnRE7JR