MORE ON ADVERTISING

Interesting to note that the day after Truth in Advertising was posted, The Pop Tort ran a very interesting article entitled: False Advertising concerning misleading drug advertising. It seems that after spending $258 Million on Lipitor ads prominently featuring Dr. Robert Jarvik, inventor or non-inventor of the artificial or Jarvik artificial heart, Pfizer pulled the campaign. The ads were a trifle misleading. Dr. Jarvik was first portrayed as the inventor the artificial heart in the ads. That was not quite true, apparently. The ad was changed and Dr. Jarvik was called the inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart. This really didn't make much difference to me as I am persuaded that the good doctor has indeed made quite a contribution in this area of medicine, though he is not a cardiologist, and not, apparently licensed to practice medicine. I do assume that Robert is a doctor of something.

What was a little distubing was that portion of the ad intended to show Dr. Jarvik rowing across a mountain lake. You see, Dr. Jarvik doesn't row, and, in fact, a body double was used. Pfizer sort of developed the Jarvik artificial Jarvik for the commercial. You may be able to fight cardio-vascular disease by taking Lipitor and exercising, but I really think that the exercise portion of the program is more effective if you do it yourself.

Such campaigns have prompted Congress to look at the direct to consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. FDA rules on such advertising were relaxed in the late 90s.

The Pop Tort post linked to a 2003 New York Times article by Erin Marcus, a general internist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami School of Medicine: When TV Commercials Play the Doctor . In that article, Dr. Marcus described the difficulties encountered by doctors when their patients ask to be prescribed drugs they have seen advertised by celebrities on TV. Dr. Marcus relates that in 2001, $2.7 Billion was spent on such advertising, a 150% increase from 1997 levels. The Lipitor article previously referred to indicates that current spending on such advertising is $4.8 Billion.

Dr. Marcus ends the article with this comment:

"Medicines aren't like shampoo or perfume. They're things people need to maintain health, not discretionary products a person can use or throw away on a whim. I'm all for educating patients so they can make informed decisions about treatment. But these ads aren't educational tools, they're sales pitches -- and as hard as we doctors try, it's tough to compete with the likes of Patti LaBelle and Dorothy Hamill."

With the Supreme Court likely to restrict, if not eliminate, the right to sue drug companies for products that have FDA approval, the claims made for drugs by slick advertisers requires more scrutiny. Dr. Jarvik may have a body double, but the rest of us need to take good care of the only one we have. America doesn't need the likes of Paris Hilton pushing legal drugs to consumers on TV.