If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Article; Seduced by ad? Take a pill
Seduced by ad? Take a pill JENNIFER WELLS Toronto Star, Mar. 27, 2005 Hi. My name's Julie. Last night I did a striptease for my husband. I was wearing black stockings and a black garter belt (he loves that look) and lacy black panties. Viewed from a certain angle you couldn't tell I was wearing some extra padding just in case I was suddenly hit with a nasty bout of anal incontinence. Sorry. That's a bit stomach churning. But I'm only stating the facts. The facts, that is, about Xenical, a weight loss prescription drug for the "considerably overweight." By considerably overweight, the drug's manufacturer, Hoffman-La Roche, is targeting consumers with a so-called Body Mass Index of 30 or greater. Xenical, says the company on the drug's website, is also aimed at people who have a body mass index of 27 or greater and additionally have other risk factors ‹ high blood pressure is one. The consumer, on the website, is cautioned about the side effects of the drug: because Xenical works by "blocking the absorption of dietary fat," it is "likely" that those taking the drug will experience "some changes" in bowel habits. These may include "gas with oily discharge" and an inability to control bowel movements. None of this information appears on the alluring ads for the drug, one of which ran full-page in this week's Maclean's magazine, featuring the rear end and upper thigh of the aforementioned "Julie." In fact, the name of the drug doesn't appear, either. The faceless Julie tells us that she has "tried and tried to lose weight on my own for so long. Then a friend at work told me there are medical weight loss treatments available." Julie's advice: ask your doctor. Why the informational striptease? Because Roche is playing by the rules, that's why. The regulations in this country, such as they are, broadly prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. An amendment made to the Food and Drugs Act in the late '70s allows for so-called reminder ads, in which a drug company may advertise a product name and its price but is prohibited from naming the disease the drug is meant to treat. Twenty years later, drug companies were given leave to run so called "help seeking messages" in which the medical disorder is discussed ‹ obesity, erectile dysfunction, depression ‹ but the drug itself is not named. Hence the mystery surrounding "Julie." The former example recalls the day when subway cars seemed to be suddenly flooded with advertisements for Alesse. "No one remembers how you arrive, it's how you leave" went an Alesse ad line. Huh? The drug company was selling birth control pills, but could not, as per the regulations, say so. And yet the consumer was getting much more emotional information than a product name. In fact, the very absence of the clarification of what Alesse was used for only enhanced the hipness of the ad campaign. The Julie ads are troubling in a couple of respects. First, the bold-faced promotional line under the butt-thigh photo says: "What would you do with a few pounds less?" The question seems not at all to fit with the obese target market for Xenical. Then there's the butt-thigh image itself. The butt appears to be very youthful and very firm as does the thigh, which begs the question, does this image realistically relate to the product? Would an obese person having shed poundage from a weight loss drug end up looking so fine? And how exactly is this an objective health message? Is the goal to be healthy, or sexy? Xenical's consumer information cautions that the drug is not a magic pill. Yet the ad ‹ rather, the message ‹ certainly leaves the impression that this is one heck of an elixir. Help-seeking messages are, by definition, "non-promotional": the drug is not identified, nor the manufacturer, nor is there any implication that the unnamed drug is the sole treatment for the disease in question. The information is deemed to be "objective." The consumer will subsequently become "informed" of side effects, etc., by consulting with his/her physician. And yet the consumer could be forgiven for thinking that such ads are nothing but promotions ‹ and persuasive, emotive promotions at that ‹ for special pills for which they just haven't figured out the name. Messages of this type are not submitted to any pre-clearance procedure by Health Canada, but I can tell you that subsequent to the launch of the campaign the Marketed Health Products Directorate did take a look at the "I am Julie" ads and concluded that they qualify as help-seeking messages. The ads merit further discussion for this reason: since 1998, Health Canada has been working on health protection legislation renewal with the aim of hauling half-century-old legislation into the modern age. Direct to consumer advertising will be a small, but important, part of that. What is it we want? The United States and New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. In the U.S., the trend is toward star-studded endorsements. Last week, Pfizer launched its newest ad campaign for the anti-depressant Zoloft. Lorraine Bracco, the raspy voiced shrink on the Sopranos, has stepped forward as a depression sufferer who says she lost a year of her life to the illness and credits Zoloft with getting back "a better version of myself." The website http://www.depression help.com features a radiant Bracco in multiple poses extolling the virtues of the drug, which, in accordance with U.S. regulations, lists potential side effects on the same Web page. It wouldn't surprise if Zoloft sales were to lift as a result ‹ that's the objective, after all. And no doubt many media outlets will benefit from Pfizer ad revenue. But is the patient getting the best health care message? Interestingly, while New Zealand is always lumped in with the U.S. as the only other industrialized nation that allows direct-to-consumer advertising, the situation there is somewhat different. It isn't that legislation expressly allows direct-to-consumer advertising, but rather that such ads were never expressly prohibited. In 1998, New Zealand's minister of health called for an inquiry into such advertising after a high-profile campaign for Xenical. That country continues to review the status of direct-to-consumer advertising. What road is Canada headed down? Karen Proud is manager of the Health Protection Renewal Secretariat at Health Canada. "What we're looking at is the sweep of Health Canada's protection legislation to modernize and update it," she says. "Generally, what we've heard through our consultations is that the existing provisions are out of date when it comes to advertising." Not surprisingly, stakeholder groups, including pharmaceutical companies, are split over the desired outcomes. "Some of them want a complete and total ban on advertising, even going so far as to ban reminder ads and help-seeking announcements," says Proud. "Other stakeholders want to see more advertising." New legislation was meant to be tabled by the spring of 2006 at the latest. That date now appears shaky. Proud says her group is just finishing up its international analysis of what happens in other jurisdictions. "My understanding," she says, "is that New Zealand is working on some changes to their legislation." If that's true, it's fair to say that the investigation that led to amendments was spurred by those Xenical ads. The Julie ads here should similarly give Ottawa pause. Someone's in charge here, and it isn't Health Canada. -- Diva ***** The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NOTE: Top-posting as Carols' post is rather long & I'm not really quoting,
although this stuff is related to the ad she posted. Every day I get over a dozen spam e-mails promoting online pharmacies that ship around the world. Xenical is one of the drugs featured, along with Viagra & Cialis. The spammers don't know I'm the wrong BMI for Xenical & the wrong gender for the other two ;-) The messages always get deleted without looking but today Carol's post arouse my curiosity, so when a couple arrived I decided to investigate further. The text of the message is as below: quote Welcome! Its time to stop wasting money on prescription drugs. Get them online for 80% off! You can always rely on our fast, discreet and stable shipping! Viagra, Cialis, Zyban, Prozac, Xenical, And many many more... Stop paying more than you have too! Including new Softtabs! the Viagra that disolves under the tongue!! Simply place 1 half a pill under your tongue, 15 min before sex. We ship world wide, and no prescription is required!! -Todays special- Viagra, Retail price $15.99, our price $2.99 Cialis, Retail price $17.99, our price $3.99 http://linkRemovedToAvoidSpammingThisGroup.com Check out our party pack as well! Confidentiality assured! /unquote Out of curiosity, I went to their website, clicked on the button to order 100 Orilstat tablets for $199 (the price is the best reason not to take them!). The site does give you the scoop on the tablets, side effects, warnings, etc. I was then taken to a page with questions about my height, weight, gender & a few medical questions, followed by an order page which, despite being labelled 'Secure Order Form - 128 bit Encryption' was NOT a secure page at all (no https or little padlock) where I was supposed to enter my credit card details & shipping info. I didn't go on any further since there's a limit to my curiosity & I draw the line at spending $199 on Xenical over an insecure server but my guess is they'd have approved my order without a prescription & despite having entered my true height & weight, which do not give a BMI over 27 or 30. I couldn't find out where in the world they're based, they quote their prices in dollars but ask for weight & height in metric format & use the British spelling for 'centres' rather than the US 'centers'. Maybe they're in Canada or NZ, the point is, anyone can easily obtain these pills online without prescription (as long as you don't mind the risk to your credit card details). "Carol Frilegh" wrote in message ... Seduced by ad? Take a pill JENNIFER WELLS Toronto Star, Mar. 27, 2005 Hi. My name's Julie. Last night I did a striptease for my husband. I was wearing black stockings and a black garter belt (he loves that look) and lacy black panties. Viewed from a certain angle you couldn't tell I was wearing some extra padding just in case I was suddenly hit with a nasty bout of anal incontinence. Sorry. That's a bit stomach churning. But I'm only stating the facts. The facts, that is, about Xenical, a weight loss prescription drug for the "considerably overweight." By considerably overweight, the drug's manufacturer, Hoffman-La Roche, is targeting consumers with a so-called Body Mass Index of 30 or greater. Xenical, says the company on the drug's website, is also aimed at people who have a body mass index of 27 or greater and additionally have other risk factors high blood pressure is one. The consumer, on the website, is cautioned about the side effects of the drug: because Xenical works by "blocking the absorption of dietary fat," it is "likely" that those taking the drug will experience "some changes" in bowel habits. These may include "gas with oily discharge" and an inability to control bowel movements. None of this information appears on the alluring ads for the drug, one of which ran full-page in this week's Maclean's magazine, featuring the rear end and upper thigh of the aforementioned "Julie." In fact, the name of the drug doesn't appear, either. The faceless Julie tells us that she has "tried and tried to lose weight on my own for so long. Then a friend at work told me there are medical weight loss treatments available." Julie's advice: ask your doctor. Why the informational striptease? Because Roche is playing by the rules, that's why. The regulations in this country, such as they are, broadly prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. An amendment made to the Food and Drugs Act in the late '70s allows for so-called reminder ads, in which a drug company may advertise a product name and its price but is prohibited from naming the disease the drug is meant to treat. Twenty years later, drug companies were given leave to run so called "help seeking messages" in which the medical disorder is discussed obesity, erectile dysfunction, depression but the drug itself is not named. Hence the mystery surrounding "Julie." The former example recalls the day when subway cars seemed to be suddenly flooded with advertisements for Alesse. "No one remembers how you arrive, it's how you leave" went an Alesse ad line. Huh? The drug company was selling birth control pills, but could not, as per the regulations, say so. And yet the consumer was getting much more emotional information than a product name. In fact, the very absence of the clarification of what Alesse was used for only enhanced the hipness of the ad campaign. The Julie ads are troubling in a couple of respects. First, the bold-faced promotional line under the butt-thigh photo says: "What would you do with a few pounds less?" The question seems not at all to fit with the obese target market for Xenical. Then there's the butt-thigh image itself. The butt appears to be very youthful and very firm as does the thigh, which begs the question, does this image realistically relate to the product? Would an obese person having shed poundage from a weight loss drug end up looking so fine? And how exactly is this an objective health message? Is the goal to be healthy, or sexy? Xenical's consumer information cautions that the drug is not a magic pill. Yet the ad rather, the message certainly leaves the impression that this is one heck of an elixir. Help-seeking messages are, by definition, "non-promotional": the drug is not identified, nor the manufacturer, nor is there any implication that the unnamed drug is the sole treatment for the disease in question. The information is deemed to be "objective." The consumer will subsequently become "informed" of side effects, etc., by consulting with his/her physician. And yet the consumer could be forgiven for thinking that such ads are nothing but promotions and persuasive, emotive promotions at that for special pills for which they just haven't figured out the name. Messages of this type are not submitted to any pre-clearance procedure by Health Canada, but I can tell you that subsequent to the launch of the campaign the Marketed Health Products Directorate did take a look at the "I am Julie" ads and concluded that they qualify as help-seeking messages. The ads merit further discussion for this reason: since 1998, Health Canada has been working on health protection legislation renewal with the aim of hauling half-century-old legislation into the modern age. Direct to consumer advertising will be a small, but important, part of that. What is it we want? The United States and New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. In the U.S., the trend is toward star-studded endorsements. Last week, Pfizer launched its newest ad campaign for the anti-depressant Zoloft. Lorraine Bracco, the raspy voiced shrink on the Sopranos, has stepped forward as a depression sufferer who says she lost a year of her life to the illness and credits Zoloft with getting back "a better version of myself." The website http://www.depression help.com features a radiant Bracco in multiple poses extolling the virtues of the drug, which, in accordance with U.S. regulations, lists potential side effects on the same Web page. It wouldn't surprise if Zoloft sales were to lift as a result that's the objective, after all. And no doubt many media outlets will benefit from Pfizer ad revenue. But is the patient getting the best health care message? Interestingly, while New Zealand is always lumped in with the U.S. as the only other industrialized nation that allows direct-to-consumer advertising, the situation there is somewhat different. It isn't that legislation expressly allows direct-to-consumer advertising, but rather that such ads were never expressly prohibited. In 1998, New Zealand's minister of health called for an inquiry into such advertising after a high-profile campaign for Xenical. That country continues to review the status of direct-to-consumer advertising. What road is Canada headed down? Karen Proud is manager of the Health Protection Renewal Secretariat at Health Canada. "What we're looking at is the sweep of Health Canada's protection legislation to modernize and update it," she says. "Generally, what we've heard through our consultations is that the existing provisions are out of date when it comes to advertising." Not surprisingly, stakeholder groups, including pharmaceutical companies, are split over the desired outcomes. "Some of them want a complete and total ban on advertising, even going so far as to ban reminder ads and help-seeking announcements," says Proud. "Other stakeholders want to see more advertising." New legislation was meant to be tabled by the spring of 2006 at the latest. That date now appears shaky. Proud says her group is just finishing up its international analysis of what happens in other jurisdictions. "My understanding," she says, "is that New Zealand is working on some changes to their legislation." If that's true, it's fair to say that the investigation that led to amendments was spurred by those Xenical ads. The Julie ads here should similarly give Ottawa pause. Someone's in charge here, and it isn't Health Canada. -- Diva ***** The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
hiking, & Backpacker article | DG511 | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 14 | June 1st, 2004 06:24 PM |
Low-Carb Dieters Eat More Calories But... ---article about Low carb | ronit | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | October 16th, 2003 10:29 AM |
Harvard study/CNN article | bob | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 4 | October 15th, 2003 03:37 PM |
What a BS article | Rage85 | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 3 | September 25th, 2003 04:28 PM |