Jamie Kopf Hirsh, who does the Consumer Reports AdWatch series, gets personal in revealing that she urinates often – at least 10 times a day on average. So does she have overactive bladder? No, and she doesn’t fall prey to the overactive marketing of OAB drugs. (Yep, it has its own acronym now – just like ED for erectile dysfunction or PE for premature ejaculation.) On the CR website, she writes:
“I asked my doctor about these drugs, just like the ads suggested. And she asked me a few things back. Did I have any problems with my urination other than the frequency–like having accidents, feeling like I couldn’t get to the bathroom on time, or leaking urine inadvertently? Well, no. Did I drink coffee? Yep, every day. Alcohol? A bit, yeah. Water? Yeah, lots. She said the amount I was urinating made sense given how much liquid I drank and the fact that, given my petite stature and family history of constant pit stops, chances were I had a pretty small bladder. She could prescribe one of the drugs, she said, which work by powerfully suppressing the urge to urinate. But I probably didn’t need it.”
It’s an example of disease-mongering, she explains, in the latest drug AdWatch video.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (6)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Jo
April 8, 2010 at 10:16 amCount me in as one who decided not to use drugs to curtail frequent urination. Glad to not be onboard the OAB train, even if it means frequent pit stops.
Liz Scherer
April 8, 2010 at 2:40 pmI watched this video and read her piece. I say hogwash. Disease mongering? OAB is a seriously underdiagnosed, not talked about problem in this country, affecting millions of women. Doctors don’t want to discuss it (I’ve seen and have the data) and so patients are often left to their own devices. Regardless of what you think about Toviaz, I applaud them for bringing this disease out of the closet. And BTW, it’s not indicated for a woman who drinks too much coffee and then pees 12 times a day.
Gary Schwitzer
April 8, 2010 at 5:21 pmLiz,
Maybe you could specify exactly what you think is “hogwash” in her piece.
She wrote:
“There are people who need drugs for urinary symptoms—indeed, our own Best Buy Drugs project offers research-based recommendations on the best medications approved to treat overactive bladder, including some you may have seen advertised. But plenty of people don’t need medication.”
Her main point, it seems, was that OAB drugmakers leave “the definition of the conditions they’re intended to treat nice and vague—so that you’re left to ponder whether you, too, have a problem that requires drug treatment.”
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