If someone asked a random person on the street about sildenafil, esomeprazole, atorvastatin, or ranitidine, that person would probably have no idea idea of ​​what these chemicals were. However, ask the same question about Viagra, Nexium, Lipitor or Zantec and the person will know about at least one of these drugs. In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration authorized the marketing of drugs directly to consumers through media such as television, making the United States one of the only countries to allow it outright. Drug advertising has a direct impact on the health of the person purchasing the drug. Pharmaceutical giants continue to spend millions of dollars on direct-to-consumer advertising each year. Often, advertising directly leads to a large increase in sales, which negates the costs of advertising, research and development. Ultimately, pharmaceutical companies victimize and deceive consumers through widespread false advertising, distorted statistics, and advantageous manipulation of lax FDA regulations using shady business practices. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay False advertising by pharmaceutical companies deceives consumers by selectively omitting vital information and using opinions rather than facts facts. The main problem today with pharmaceuticals is the insane amount of advertising done by companies. In 2003 alone, a total of $3.2 billion was spent on advertising in the United States alone. Between the advent of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising in 1997 and 2003, the pharmaceutical industry took the title of the tenth largest advertiser in the United States (Lansing, Paul and Fricke). Of course, the money spent on drug advertising certainly has benefits for businesses. A report by congressional investigators showed that there was a direct correlation between drug advertising to consumers and increased demands and use of these prescription drugs. In fact, at least 8.5 million Americans receive prescriptions for heavily advertised drugs each year (Gottlieb). There is nothing inherently wrong with advertising, although false or dishonest advertising crosses the line. The risk of consumers being misled by unpublished side effects would be reduced if the FDA reviewed advertisements before they appeared on television. Unfortunately, this process would cost companies a lot of money and also prolong the drug development and approval process, which currently takes up to 12 years (FDA approvals). The compromise between the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA was that the FDA would not review the advertisements until they were released (Plackett). Pharmaceutical companies would also be responsible for carrying out tests on the proposed drug. Of course, this has its drawbacks. While this promotes healthy capitalism, it also inevitably leads to an unhealthy dose of unethical business practices. It is ultimately up to viewers to report any inconsistencies to the FDA, unless FDA reviewers spot misleading claims in advance. Between 1997 and 2002, the FDA issued 88 citations ordering the removal of advertisements from several pharmaceutical companies (Gottlieb). A common trend seems to bethat advertisements for over-the-counter (OTC) drugs are more dishonest than those for prescription drugs. . As Claritin, an allergy medication, moved from prescription to over-the-counter status, advertisements made "six times as many claims about the drug's benefits" (Plackett). Due to the ease of purchasing over-the-counter medications, pharmaceutical companies rely more on brand awareness and the benefits of advertised medications. This large-scale false advertising is of course not limited to a few specific brands. In a study carried out by researchers for the Journal of General Internal Medicine, 168 advertisements over a two-year period between 2008 and 2010 were selected. 84 were for well-known prescription drugs and 84 were for well-known over-the-counter drugs. All of these ads ran on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN; all major news networks. Researchers found that only 33% of the claims in the ads were completely true (Perry). Many of these claims highlight a larger problem, that of the use of distorted statistics. Pharmaceutical companies continually use distorted statistics to misrepresent their product and create false expectations in the minds of consumers. Brand loyalty is one of the primary ways that companies market their products to consumers. The same goes for pharmaceutical companies. In addition to using easy-to-remember slogans such as "Levitra works for me, maybe it can work for you" or "the daily painkiller (Advil)", companies often use misleading statistics on television and in printed materials (Perry). These statistics often appear as legitimate to the viewer as the advertisement lasts a few seconds on television or at a glance on a newspaper page, but often the pretty graphics and other visual aspects of the advertisement are often there to give psychological to the viewer the more positive impression about the drug. Graphs and tables are often used to provide the viewer with clear and memorable summaries of study results. These are often likely to lead the consumer to misleading conclusions (Lexchin). These visuals make it possible to mislead doctors and make them recommend certain medications to patients. Sometimes the visuals provided in pharmaceutical company advertisements are completely absurd or unfounded. In a study at UCLA, doctors analyzed the quality of 484 advertisements, 63 of which had a total of 74 graphics. The results showed that 64% of these graphics did not contain enough drug information, 47% had no keys or captions, 36% were numerically distorted so that consumers overestimated effectiveness, and 31% did not provide no sample size (Cooper). This problem doesn't just persist in consumer advertising. Advertisements in published medical journals often suffer from the same affliction. In another study by internal medicine physicians, results indicated that out of 27 advertisements in 10 major U.S. medical journals, 8 advertisements contained statistics from inconclusive or poorly designed studies (Wilkes, Doblin, and Shapiro). Obviously, this ends up influencing doctors' opinions as well. The industry no longer needs to rely on lobbyists. According to Dr. Alan Steinberg, research director for NOP World Health, "doctors are most likely to accesspatient requests regarding advertised brands” (Lansing, Paul and Fricke). Advertisements created by pharmaceutical companies end up manipulating consumers by giving them false information about the effects of the drug being sold. Not only does the industry do this through statistical information, but it also subconsciously implies the positive life changes that accompany the use of the advertised drug. For example, in 2004, the FDA forced Pfizer to withdraw its Viagra advertisements. The advertisements falsely claimed that Viagra could restore sexual desire in the consumer (Lansing, Paul and Fricke). The advertisement also included themes such as happiness, a good American lifestyle, and other things that appealed to male tastes. The amount of advertising for Viagra, however, is clearly profitable for Pfizer. With $111.6 million spent on advertising, the drug brought in $1.88 billion in revenue for the company (Lansing, Paul and Fricke). The pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca was also forced to remove an advertisement for Crestor that falsely claimed that the FDA had "confidence in the safety and effectiveness" of the drug (Payne). There is little to lose for a pharmaceutical company if sales continue to generate significant revenue that negates fines or withdrawals imposed by the FDA. Unfortunately, the low level of regulation before advertisements are released only makes it easier for pharmaceutical companies to pursue this line of action. Government regulations on the pharmaceutical industry result in pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of loopholes and using underhanded tactics to offer consumers potentially dangerous and overpriced drugs. Thanks to the agreement with the FDA, pharmaceutical companies now have full control over the process from drug development to clinical trials to publication of data (Moncrieff). Although some pharmaceutical companies submit their findings to the FDA for review before releasing advertisements, many still withhold the information unless they are forced to turn it over due to a post-publication issue. . During the 1960s, most clinical trials of pharmaceuticals were government-funded and conducted by public institutions. However, today, clinical trials are carried out by contract research organizations. As their name suggests, CROs subcontract their services to pharmaceutical companies. These organizations as well as university research centers are actively competing to perform research for the giants of the pharmaceutical industry (Bodenheimer). The problem with research done by CROs is obvious. Although they claim to be heavily regulated, CROs and other centers that hire research services must compete by achieving favorable results to secure future business. This inevitably tips the scales in favor of the pharmaceutical industry. This isn't the only questionable tactic employed by pharmaceutical giants. Earlier, incomplete or irrelevant statistics were found to be problematic with graphics and claims made in advertisements. Even though pharmaceutical clinical trials were found to be "four times more likely to have a positive result than independently conducted trials" and the methods used were better, industry-funded trials actually suppressed negative data to make their essays look better (Goldacre). This is a major problem. The consumer &.