Member List
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.

Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Old 06-29-2007, 08:31 PM
Finch's Avatar
Finch Offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 5,201
Send a message via Skype™ to Finch
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

OMG like totally and you're in on it too! You're all out to get me!

On a more serious note...

Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Pressures of advertising?

How about the pressure of greedy corporate executives, breathing down your neck to have it done ASAP so they can start making money?

It isn't ads, it is the people who don't care if it is safe as long as they make money off it. Snake-oil salesmen have been around longggg before ads.
You're half right, but you cannot deny that advertising in the public domain serves as a catalyst, providing the corporations with an easy way to carry out their deception and grab money. Without advertising, their "market" of the addicts you spoke of wouldn't dwindle.

Originally Posted by FFK
Wrong, people have always been careless and cut corners for money. Ads won't change this. People will continue to make as much money as possible, by not testing as fully as they could, cutting research periods short, and so on. You seem to think that ads suddenly corrupt wonderful people... But that's simply not true. Businesses have always been exortionistic.
That's not what I think at all. What I know is that advertising can be used to increase a corporation's ability to act in a corrupt way, thereby increasing the potential for more corruption.

Originally Posted by FFK
Go in circles all you want, but this is still wrong. Even before TV ads for medicines existed, people were cutting corners, and because of that, medicines were not of great quality, and so on. That's very nice wishful thinking- just eliminate ads and it will magically improve- but it is not in the least bit true.

The pressure to make more money, faster, and make stuff cheaper, and produce it early.. Has and will always be there. As executives continue to be corrupt, it may get worse, but you can hardly blame ads for the lack of morals present in a few.
You're right, but I can blame it for the increase in their immoral behaviour. TV ads didn't create the problem but they sure as hell made it worse.

Originally Posted by FFK
Except you have the wrong cause.

Corporate leaders want to make money.
To do that, they want a few things.
First, they want the drug ready to sell ASAP.
Then, they want production, and testing, to be cheaper.
Third, they also don't want to hear about delays, proof that it isn't safe, or anything that prevents their goal- making more money off people.

Ads are a way for them to get news about the product out. They aren't the cause of moral deficiency.

Getting rid of ads will not change the pressure from higher people in the business to get the drug out faster and for less. This will continue to exist unless we get leaders with some ethics.
You can see from your own process, then, that advertising is a vital step. If it were removed, there would be less market pressure and less media trouble. Doctors would have to make a judgement based on the raw research (now of increased importance) and it'd be a lot harder to hide the facts.

Originally Posted by FFK
But old articles which are outdated don't help any.
That depends on what you're trying to prove. This doesn't concern the state of medical research. The morals of the FDA researchers and corporation leaders are the issue, which I can assure you will remain unchanged.

Originally Posted by FFK
Do you think that after 9 years of making a lot of money by screwing people over, they won't have retired, and turned the business over to someone for even more money?

People don't live forever, at some point, they gotta retire or die.
That's right, and they're likely to replace someone with their own belief system and style to carry on their own legacy, in a classic display of individualistic arrogance.

Originally Posted by FFK
Lol, did I ever say they would? You're quick to jump to illogical conclusions...
I simply said that presumably, drugs DO have side effects, as the FDA claims, and that while they might not mention some, the ones they mention likely exist.
I expected Doctors to read their reports, not the people, so I'm not sure what your issue is.
My issue? If doctors read their reports, the public wouldn't need to be involved. So why bother?

Originally Posted by FFK
Lol, speculation?
So you disagree? You think if drug ads are pulled, companies will suddenly, unanimously start testing properly, spending more if it makes the product safer, not exorting people, etc?

Taking away the ads, won't bring back ethics.
That's only the first step. Removing the pressure from marketing and exerting it on research won't change the beliefs of the corporate leaders, but it will certainly affect the behaviour of the company as an entity.

Originally Posted by FFK
Except they don't want the drug to look bad and not be prescribed, so they'll still try to hide side effects.
They won't be able to if stronger research monitoring is put in place.

Originally Posted by FFK
Haha, doubtful. If anything, it'll be easier to hide. If the people mention a side effect, but aren't communicating about it... Only doctors will know. Unless a lot of cases of that effect occur in the patients of a single doctor, who will know?

If the people can't learn about the drug enough to have a starting point about it....
You're claiming doctors are isolated from one another, then? They don't communicate in any way, or share information?

Originally Posted by FFK
Executives, who always will be greedy. =) Hun, you can get rid of ads if you want, but snake oil salesman have existed for just about ever, and will continue to do so.

If patients don't get a say in their treatment, all they need to do is put out an unsafe medicine. And why not? The doctors won't know, if they do not publicize the unsafe results of testing, or lie / hide it. It gets prescribed, and it could take a while, if the effect isn't serious, for people to realize that the drug has a bad side effect. ^_^ This is when everyone gets screwed over.

Face it, people will always skimp on testing. Everyone likes to, so they can have less of a production cost.
See above, regarding monitoring.

Originally Posted by FFK
Precisely. Now, mind telling me what ads have to do with corrupt corporate executives, willing to do poor research 'n stuff for a profit?

Without ads, they'll still engage in their other techniques to make lots of money. =) Some people are like that.
Oh, right. We should just give in and let them? It won't matter, we're going to get screwed over no matter what we do? Exerting pressure on the corporation by enforcing testing regulations will reduce, if not negate this type of occurence.

Originally Posted by FFK
And so getting rid of ads will do exactly what to fix their attitude?
Absolutely nothing, but their behaviour is all that matters.

Originally Posted by FFK
Feel free if you want to, it'll still be wrong. ^_^

If a company can't get out drugs fast.... They'll be overrun by competitors.
Thus they want to cut corners in testing, to save time.

Also, they need to at least have a reasonably close cost to other alternatives.
So they will do more of that, to save money.

Basic laws of economics- spend less to make more, whenever and however you can.
The point is that reducing advertising will reduce competition, that's how the market works.

Originally Posted by FFK
Lol, through conditioning?
What, so everything's one big conspiracy?
Give me a break, if you are smart enough to see through the ads, everyone is.
It merely informs them of the drug's existance. Then they can ask their doctor for more info on it.
Now who's jumping to conclusions? Socialisation isn't anything to do with conspiracy. It's what's lead you to behave the way you do in your everyday life. It shapes and moulds all of us. In western society, socialisation leads us to trust corporations we recognise, and this is another thing that advertising has acted as a catalyst for.

I'm not saying that we're literally being brainwashed. Rather, the corporations are taking advantage of the way we are naturally brought up to trust a brand.

Originally Posted by FFK
I'm still waiting for proof on this. Or your explanation of how bladder control and calcium drugs are 'sexed up', lol.
Oh, come on. There is no statistic to show that advertising makes products look more attractive than they really are, it's just common knowledge. Wake up.

Originally Posted by FFK
Yeah... Thanks to meds, people can now survive many things that would once have killed them. Polio and Smallpox are pretty much eradicated in the US. But that's not really a good thing, it's just a conspiracy making us westerners think that, right?
Oh, hold on, I'm going to have to wait for five minutes while they advertise Polio and Smallpox drugs between Naruto episodes. Lol.

Originally Posted by FFK
Is it really ethical to BE deceptive?
The problem there is that drugs are made carelessly, tested poorly, and info on them can be hidden. That's not an advertising issue. If people would all honestly advertise, it'd be great, but in the meantime, at least those who are are helping the people.
It's naive to suggest that such a thing as completely honest advertising exists when selling a product. As you know (well, you claim not to, but still) it's the number one rule of advertising that the product is shown in a positive light. To do this, it is necessary to be deceptive by omitting important facts, and disguising others.

Originally Posted by FFK
Brainwashed? There we go with odd conspiracy theories again...
If you have a problem, what's wrong with asking the doctor what to do about it?
People aren't marching in, demanding to be prescribed a drug for a totally different disease.
They're seeing ads, realizing they can get help, and going to ask their doctor for something to help them.
I fail to see a problem here. And conspiracies don't count. xD
I refuse to acknowledge your accusation, but I will note the fact that people never demand products they don't need, or higher quantities of one they do. Or, I would, but it's simply untrue. A main factor in the removal of Vioxx was its use when any anti-inflammatory would have sufficed, just because people had heard the fancy name on their TV set.

Originally Posted by FFK
So find a doctor you trust.
Unless they're all 'brainwashed', too?
We're slaves to the system, hunny bunch :goofy

Originally Posted by FFK
But that could very well be paranoia, since presumably someone who made it all the way through med school would know what they're doing, and be made of sterner stuff than that.

Again, thoughts and conspiracies mean nothing without evidence...
You're diagnosing me now? Better get me some prescription drugs, stat! Do Coca-Cola make anything for schizophrenia? Incidentally, demanding evidence for its own sake when we're dealing with something that cannot be quantitatively proven (the nature of advertising) is moronic.

Originally Posted by FFK
Mmm, still waiting for proof on these theories.
Don't have any, hun, I hope a smilie will suffice =)

Originally Posted by FFK
What do hypochondriacs have to do with addicts?
Addicts do not think they are sick, they want the effect of certain drugs. And these are not the sort advertised on TV, before you try to blame TV for all the addicts in the world...

Also, hypochondriacs are not THAT common.
I'll admit that my statement there was poorly worded. Addicts are one case where prescription drugs are misused, and hypochondriacs are yet another. Besides that, you have the cases where regular patients are being given drugs their doctor says they need when really they could be better off with something less strong.

Doctor: I could recommend you take ibuprofen, but Vioxx is stronger and gets me endorsement money!
Patient: Hit me, doc!

Obviously, that's analagous.

Originally Posted by FFK
Ah, again with brainwashing and subliminal messages...
Is everything part of some huge conspiracy here?

Originally Posted by FFK
Unless there was a mistake, or they're careless, or they forget (They see a LOT of people, think they'll remember the specifics of each), or it wasn't listed in your record due to human error.

Or unless you don't KNOW if you have the allergy. =) You have to find out sometime.. But if some people in your family are allergic, you ought to be able to know, so you can avoid things with that in it, if possible. Finding out you are allergic to something when you go into anaphylaxis sucks.
That's laughable! Advertising alerts you to allergies you don't already know you have? Ha! =) =) =)

Originally Posted by FFK

The university of ILlinois named these the drugs most commonly reacted to:

anticonvulsants, which are used to treat seizures
barbiturates, which are used to provide sedation
iodine, which is used in antiseptics and contrast media for some X-ray tests
novocaine and similar local or topical anesthetics
penicillin and related antibiotics, such as amoxicillin
sulfa medications, which are also antibiotics

These are NOT rare. Who hasn't had novacaine, at some point, and if they haven't yet, will they at some point? What about anti-biotics? Or iodine? Even barbiturates are somewhat common.
And due to their nature, the medics are more cautious about prescribing them. This is a case where the results obtained from customer feedback (which should have come from testing) were used advantageously to alert the doctors (not the general public, or at least no primarily) to the possible side effects of a drug. Thanks for the evidence, now argue against it.

Originally Posted by FFK
It costs money to see a doctor again, get another prescription, etc. In addition, why not just avoid the condition in the first place? The people deserve to know what's being done to them, and what's in the medicines they're taking, etc.
Not everywhere, it doesn't. The world doesn't end when you leave the USA. In the UK, the NHS is government funded.

Avoid the condition? What the hell?

Originally Posted by FFK
In a beautiful, perfect, faerie-tale world, sure.
But that's not the sort of place we live in.
It appears to be the sort of place you live in, Ms Nascar.

Originally Posted by FFK
Repeat it again if you want. It's still wrong.

Executives want more money --> pressure on drug companies --> Poor testing/research, intentional cover ups, use of cheap material to save money --> Unsafe products.
As I've said, advertising serves as a tool for which this process can be carried out, and it is made impossible or at least difficult for corporations to follow it without.
Old 06-30-2007, 03:51 AM
Diesel 34's Avatar
Diesel 34 Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Candyland
Posts: 2,749
Default Re: [WAR] Debate Week 3

Team Trainer
Diesel 34

Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Lol, wrong, people question all the time, if the drug makes them feel bad, they can't afford it, it makes them uneasy, etc. =)

Except there are lots of competitors, + overseas places to get meds from, + in Brazil medical patents can be broken on certain things, and so meds there are very cheap for outsiders, and sometimes even free for Brazilians.

Yah, 'cause doctors are mindless idiots who give the patient whatever he wants...
Oops! Except, no, they're not. They prescribe what is needed after running the tests.
What if the test is wrong though. What happens when the doctor over looks something that clearly makes it another disease. Then the doctor gives the patient the wrong medicine and it makes the persons health even worse. Then the doctor is held liable for being sued all because he saw something on the tv that he thought could be good for that person. If you were a doctor would you give your patient something that you saw on tv and you had never heard of before.

Which is wonderful, but then no one would work in the field of medicine. Not making money = not a job that will get a lot of people.

A 'right' to life not being a commodity = no pay, unless you simply mean a 'right' to being uninformed, which would only cut ads.
If your fantasy-world includes medicines being free or very cheap, consider this- making LESS money, even, wouldn't be acceptable to some drug companies, and to save money, they'd chop safety, testing, and maybe even pay, making the job less desirable. Or they'd switch to producing something else, and oops, there goes those medicines.
Do you think that the stuff is even good if they feel they need to advertise it? If it is a good medicine, doctors won't need to see it on tv or advertised, they'll here about it cause their other doctor friends will tell them about it.

Haha, sure, in a perfect world.
In reality, it is whichever the doctor prefers. =) Your doctor is in charge of your prescriptions, so you get what he thinks you need, regardless of ads to the patient.
Thinks is the keyword there. Do they actually think its the doctor thinking or does the commercial influence them because they want their patient to be healed. He won't prescribe it though if he wants to make sure its safe. He'll look up online reports about it except for the fact they don't need to see the advertisment cause they aren't gonna just wait to see something to help their patient. They will look it up on their own.

We're talking about PRESCRIPTION drugs, though. Not OTCs. ^^: Y'know, the ones you can't just 'choose', that a doctor must decide you need.

The doctor, of course. The medicine ads should just be a reminder. If they get you to go to the doctor for more info, good. You can get tested for whatever ailment you could have while you're there. If you have one that needs treatment, then you get the med you need. =) 'Tis a good system.
Reminder? If I'm correcty in a few posts earlier you said that magazines only come out once a month while tv is on all the time. You also mentioned on how doctors don't have to much time to check tv. If that is true wouldn't it be the same for the advertisements and the magazines. There is no need for both when they give the info at about the same time if you check percentages. So that reminder is not good.

Well, duh, no sensible person does that. So then, what's the problem with a little early info from an ad?
We go to highschool before college, even though professor know more than HS teachers, and teach in more depth. Should we eliminate that? Or is it better to have pre-existing 'framework'?

So in other words, people are so stupid that things must be done FOR them, without their knowledge?
^_~ That's a very optomistic view, albeit vaguely... Controlling, shall we say.

People deserve to know what's being done to them, to their bodies and lives, and so on. WE do not do things 'for the good of the people' without their knowledge, unless you're living in communist north korea... And once the people totally rely on others to choose things for them, well, look how THAT works out.

Has nothing to do with ads. xD They're not even vaguely related.

Another silly idea... Their advice isn't being bypassed. The ad gets people into their office, with a little knowledge of what is going on. Then it is the doctor's job to expand on this.

That's like saying that mechanics hate ads reminding you to change their oil, because that is THEIR job. Give me a break.
The thing is the it is the doctors job to look up info about a disease. Thats why you go to them. Not so you can tell your doctor about the medicine and end up paying a bunch of money to the doctor who did almost nothing. Your also going around in circles in these posts. I'm not the only one seeing this. You don't make a point by saying the exact same thing over and over. The only point you do make is that you have no more points.
Old 11-23-2008, 05:01 PM
Yoda55's Avatar
Yoda55 Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 3)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: NUMA NUMA YEH!!!!!
Posts: 3,038
Send a message via AIM to Yoda55
Angry Re: Should drugs companies be allowed to advertise prescription drugs direct to the p

Drugs are stupid. Advertising is stupid. Advertising for drugs is very stupid.
Old 11-24-2008, 04:49 AM
Ah Beng I the Pikabeng's Avatar
Ah Beng I the Pikabeng Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 4)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: What's a "location"?
Posts: 4,065
Default Re: Should drugs companies be allowed to advertise prescription drugs direct to the p

Why even change the thread's title, especially when it can't even fit? The old one was better...

Anyway, my answer to this question is no, because it'll do more harm than good. I mean, abuse of the drugs will make the society worse off. And if not taken properly, the bacteria, viruses etc will be more resistant to the drug. (Now, money-minded doctors and drug-making companies will probably disagree with me...) Besides, if you look at it another way, these ads will be a waste of time and money.

EDIT: Hey, wait, what're you doing, yoda55, reviving a thread from last year? I got tricked... -_-
What's a "signature"?

Last edited by Ah Beng I the Pikabeng; 11-24-2008 at 04:51 AM.
Old 11-27-2008, 02:23 AM
Lord Celebi's Avatar
Lord Celebi Offline
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 13,317
Send a message via AIM to Lord Celebi Send a message via Skype™ to Lord Celebi
Default Re: Should drugs companies be allowed to advertise prescription drugs direct to the p

Originally Posted by yoda55 View Post
Drugs are stupid. Advertising is stupid. Advertising for drugs is very stupid.
EPIC Revival.

*Twiddles thumbs waiting for a mod with power to lock this*
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: