Former Pfizer exec: Maybe it’s time for pharma to drop TV ads

kokasses

It’s about time the HONESTY TORCH was shun on this Industry! This Conversation NEEDS to be Started! This Candid Admission is a Positive Step and must be taken Further! Many addictions started with Pharmaceutical Produced Drugs. Once Hooked, addicts Veers off to More CHEAPER Home produced, Illegal Cocktails, Extracted from these ‘Legal’ Over the Counter Drugs!

peavy

Mr. LaMattina gives unintended insight into a part of this problem. The fact that he found ‘informational’ advertising a reasonable plan while he worked for pharma is indicative of the extent to which we are all subject to the influences of the predominant opinion which surrounds us. Mr. LaMattina was amidst those who were arguing pharma’s POV and subject to that group-think.

Individuals in pharma, or any business, are by-and-large honorable people. But, the business of any business, including (but not limited to) pharma, is to make money. Negative results do not make money, so there is a tendency to see those carefully-selected trial results as truly significant, the doesn’t-quite-reach-significance trial as still important to report. It is easy to turn a blind eye to the fact that advertising for a drug which may benefit a small group is worded in a way which makes it easy for the public (physician) to assume it applies to a large, general population. It is easy to ignore the fact that a catchy slogan (let’s see, I believe “low-T” is the one currently irritating me the most) has NOTHING to do with useful information.

This conflict of interest is inherent and irremediable. The tendency to think as do those around us is also inherent not sufficiently amenable to personal effort. This is why pharma reps and advertising personnel and executives can fail to see the slant in their materials. This is why industry cannot be expected to police itself and why controls must come from without.

There is now a significant amount of research showing that even skeptical physicians are not immune to the blandishments of the sales rep. There is good research showing why physicians and their offices should not be allowed ‘gifts’ from reps: it is not the gifts per se, it is the time spent with slanted information. Why on earth should we expect the general public to be better than trained medical personnel at weeding fact from inference? Why would we expect TV advertising would not affect physicians as well as the public?