The AP reports:
“…members of the Food and Drug Administration’s reproductive drugs panel voted 11-0 that the drug’s benefits did not outweigh side effects, including fatigue, depression and fainting spells.
Flibanserin failed to increase sexual desire, as recorded by women in daily journals, in two company studies.
The FDA will make its own decision on the drug in coming months, though it generally follows the panel’s advise.”
When will we learn to put evidence before hype?
To wait until all the evidence is in before promoting something as “the female viagra” – as “the pink pill” that women have been waiting for?
Shame on the journalists who hyped this story leading up to the FDA panel’s vote. It resembled free advertising, free marketing, free buildup of demand for an unproven product.
And pity the poor consumers who heard about this every day and bought the hype.
When will we learn to be better evaluators of the evidence?
Addendum two hours after original post: many more good details in this story from MedPageToday.com.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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.
Joseph Arpaia, MD
June 18, 2010 at 9:44 pmIt may have flopped but at least some media are spouting nonsense.
Here is a link to an NYT article which reports on the issue as if there is no doubt that female HSDD is a serious disorder. Terrible journalism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/business/19sexpill.html?hp
sickcheapo
June 19, 2010 at 9:12 ami love it, im so glad this drug flopped they need to fire the greedy idiots at BI who tried to make up this disease state. I have an idea why not go after cures which BI has none (no long term money in that). good luck with your me too rat poison.
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