Headlines from around the world today read:
‘Female Viagra’ may boost sex drive
Boehringer’s Desire Drug Boosts Lust, Improves Sex
New drug could boost women’s libido
Desire Drug May Prove Sex Really Is All in Her Head
Anti-depressant can revive a woman’s libido
Coming soon! A ‘viagra’ for women
Meet Your New Experimental Sex Drug
But John Mack of the Pharma Marketing Blog reacted this way to a Bloomberg story:
“So, compared to placebo, women taking BI’s “desire drug,” flibanserin, experienced 0.8 more “satisfying sex acts” per month than did women taking a placebo. That’s about 0.2 more per week.
By the way, a “satisfying sex act” can include … wait for it … masturbation! …
“The U.S. market for medicines to rekindle female desire could exceed $3.5 billion a year,” said the Bloomberg article. Isn’t that more than the current US sales of Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra combined? That seems like a lot of money to pay for 10 or so yearly masturbatory sexual acts in patients who take these “desire pills.”
Boy, I wish I could see the clinical trial data. I am sure it’s all very scientifically valid…NOT! I mean, how do they measure a “satisfying sexual act?” I’m pretty sure they do not hook women subjects up to some kind of gizmo as Pfizer has done to measure erections in men who take Viagra (see “Pfizer’s Erection Hardness Meter”).
…God help us if FDA approves this snake oil product! If you thought the Viagra ads were inappropriate, wait until you see Congress’s reaction to ads showing women experiencing increased sexual libido. Whichever ad agency wins that account will have a lot of interesting issues to deal with.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Caroline (SpeakHealth.org)
November 17, 2009 at 10:22 amGood point! i’m NOT looking forward to those ads, but the rate this new drug is getting blown out of proportion, i bet i will be forced to mute them sometime soon.
I feel certain that the people researching this drug do not understand, or care to understand womens sexuality from a whole health perspective. im pretty sure that the money spent testing and advertising this drug, snake oil or not, would be better spent addressing the cultural, psychological and relational elements that form a lot of womens sexual health problems- though i am not a doctor.
c
patty king
November 17, 2009 at 2:02 pmIt would be great if the drug manufacturer was required to put the results of the experiment on the bottle. “Women taking BI’s desire drug,experienced 0.8 more satisfying sex acts per month than did women taking a placebo. That’s about 0.2 more per week.” Now that would be playing fair. I think if they did the experiment again using wine as the test drug the results would be much more than almost 1 more satisfying sex act per month.
Dr. Stephanie Buehler
November 18, 2009 at 5:24 amAs a sex therapist, I promise you that sexual desire is so much more than simply a measure of how many sex acts are performed in a month. I don’t think a lot of men are going to feel excited that their partner has to take a pill in order to feel like having sex with them.
On the other hand, I could see some need for a medication like this, for example, after treatment for cancer.
My fear is that it will be marketed like M&Ms. What will women learn about their true needs if they pop a pill instead of figuring it all out?
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like