I really don’t pay much attention to drug ads anymore. I feel I’ve learned everything I need to know about 4-hour erections, how the Flying Nun got grounded by osteoporosis, and how it’s a little green monster that causes my toenail fungus.
But sometimes ads seek you out.
Today I revisited my old stomping grounds, giving a guest lecture on media ethics at the University of Minnesota journalism school. And a student came up after class waving this full-page color ad he saw yesterday in the Star Tribune newspaper.
It was a Zetia drug ad. The banner promotes the drug’s “different way to help lower cholesterol.”
But the student drew my attention to the bottom of the ad, and the ad copy:
Unlike some statins, ZETIA has not been shown to prevent heart disease or heart attacks.
Oh, but it can lower cholesterol. And the ad mentions that six times.
We need to help people get smarter about sniffing out studies that only show results on test scores, on surrogate markers, on intermediate endpoints – studies that seem to suggest that risk factors for disease are, themselves, diseases. We need to help people think about whether findings really made a difference in peoples’ lives.
The student who brought me the ad sniffed out the story immediately. We need more like him.
Coincidentally, also today we posted a review of a story on HealthNewsReview.org that was flawed by failing to address this very issue. But this was a news story, not an ad. Room for improvement.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
Ken Leebow
April 7, 2011 at 2:37 pmAs always, thanks for pointing out these issues.
For this one, if you didn’t laugh so hard, you’d cry.
I’ve photographed many of the advertisements that move us toward taking cholesterol-lowering drugs http://bit.ly/4QikjZ
My next step is to take photos of all the ridiculous ads pushing drugs.
Carolyn Thomas
April 8, 2011 at 8:21 amHi Gary
Did you know that such Direct To Consumer “ask your doctor” ads are illegal here in Canada, and in all other countries except the U.S. and New Zealand? We might wonder why that is….
We might also wonder why on earth docs are continuing to prescribe Zetia? Prominent physicians have been brutal in their assessment of this drug. Zetia’s rise “was the miracle of marketing, not the miracle of medicine,” says cardiologist Dr. Sanjay Kaul of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.
Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Dr. Steven Nissen adds: “We’ve spent billions on a drug that may turn out to be a placebo.”
DTC ads like this are part of a $741 million print, television and online ad campaign for Zetia and its sister drug Vytorin since 2004. (Vytorin’s a mystery too – cardiologists Dr. John LaRosa claims: “There’s no reason to take Vytorin at all.”)
Michael Kirsch, MD
April 11, 2011 at 8:30 amEvery few years, the level for a ‘normal’ cholesterol decreases. Soon, the entire country will be diseased and need treatment,
Chris
May 18, 2012 at 10:27 pmThat’s not necessarily a bad thing. The standard for “normal” improves over time as science and technology advance. During the Stone Age, it was “normal” to die in your twenties. Being mortal will be a disease, once we find a cure for it.
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