3 ms·

I Googled, and found that (1) research into it was financed by the media and pharmaceutical industries, (2) the FDA lifted the moratorium/ban on it around 1999,

I Googled, and found that (1) research into it was financed by the media and pharmaceutical industries, (2) the FDA lifted the moratorium/ban on it around 1999, after heavy lobbying, (3) regulations around it center on truthfulness of the product claims and complete risk disclosures (free and cheap alternative treatments will never get advertised, of course), (4) since then ad spending is up exponentially, as are drug use and drug prices, (5) after advertising was allowed, research into this stopped, I found nothing recent, just rehashing old research. To me it is pretty clear what is going on here (and no, it's not a good thing)

refurb 9y ago
You're looking at the wrong study. It was a survey financed by the FDA, not by the media or manufacturers.[1] Findings: - Most physicians agreed that because their patient saw a DTC ad, he or she asked thoughtful questions during the visit. - Many physicians thought that DTC ads made their patients more involved in their health care. - The study demonstrated that when a patient asked about a specific drug, 88 percent of the time they had the condition that the drug treated. And 80 percent of physicians believed their patients understood what condition the advertised drug treats. Not all positive though: - Physicians thought the ads did not convey information about risks and benefits equally well. So if you had said DTC has pluses and minuses I would have agreed with you. Blanket "it's terrible" just demonstrates that person's lack of knowledge of the data that's out there. [1]https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143562.htm https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm14356...
- icebraining 9y ago
  Where's the part about the undiagnosed?