CSN Login
Members Online: 3

You are here

Designer Drugs Marketing

Rocquie's picture
Rocquie
Posts: 856
Joined: Mar 2013

Several years ago, my husband and I made the decision to cancel our TV cable. It was so expensive and we hardly watched it. We would watch news. He liked the history channel and I liked watching cooking shows. Content we want to view is easily available online. 

Which makes it very shocking to me when I am exposed to TV. I recently spent a couple months with my 93-year-old Mother. If she is not in bed, she has the TV on. The volume of drug ads! And the side-effects! They have to cost a fortune to produce! They have beautiful camera work and lighting, acting, editing, production. And catchy music.  They barely touch on how they can help, but have a mile long list of side-effects. I heard warnings of serious diseases as a result of these drugs, including tuberculosis and even lymphoma. What in the world do the drug reps say to physicians to convince them to prescribe these?  For non life-threatning ailments. 

(I haven't seen advertising for adriamycin, cytoxin, rituxan, antibiotics, etc. which save so many lives.)

Our 11-year-old granddaughter just spent a few days with us. It broke my heart when I heard her walking around the house, mindlessly singing, O-O-O-Ozempic!

Rocquie

 

po18guy's picture
po18guy
Posts: 1192
Joined: Nov 2011

In the 70s or 80s which said, simply: "Kill your TV"  With rare exception, I do not watch TV.  Black and white movies are worth watching, by definition. Everything else, not so much.

Drug costs: 2-5 billion dollars from concept to FDA label. That is a ton of investent to recoup. Without the structure that is in place, drug development would decline along with our life spans. Classic doubvle-edged sword.

Somewhere, TV went from program (noun) to program (verb). I'm not having it.

Max Former Hodgkins Stage 3's picture
Max Former Hodg...
Posts: 3662
Joined: May 2012

Roc, I quite agree with everything you wrote.  TV is idiocy, and becomes cruder by the season.  My wife and I have been married 30 years, and have never had cable tv, ever.   I got on the broadcast (over the air, to an antenna) TV kick decades ago, many years before it became popular.  It is free, and modern digital broadcasting is technically clearer than anything achievable with either cable or dish.  I have a deep fringe antenna and gain booster, and receive about 70 channels.  It was a one-time expense of less than $300.  We do have streaming via the  internet for Netflix and Amazon, but those together are under $40/mo.

I have not watched broadcast national news in probably 25 years...the bias and smug disdain the anchors and reports show is too disguisting for me to stomach.  I do watch some local news, mostly for the weather.   Journalism is now licensed stupidity.   Newspapers routinely have egregious illiteracies:  basic grammar flaws, wrong diction.   Those people seemingly know nothing about anything.   The Eagle's hit Dirty Laundry said it all years ago.

The  "....mab Drugs," a host of anti-cancer and R.A. medicines, virtually all have disclaimers that they may cause lymphoma.   As you note, many other drugs, whether blood thinners or what ever, are similiar.   Ten seconds of what they might do that is beneficial, followed by a minute of ways they can kill you.   The world is lawyered up, and we will likely never return to sanity or basic reasoning abilities.

ShadyGuy
Posts: 684
Joined: Jan 2017

Has stupid drug ads. I tell my wife "that stuff will pickle your brain". I watch almost zero TV and just an occasional movie or "How the Universe Works" that is streamed. I make frequent use of the mute button. My daughter was flabergasted when she learned I had never watched "Friends" or "Sex in the city". I have a string of live cameras in the  Forest I monitor on the web to study wildlife and also study physics. No tv cable is a good idea!

Subscribe to Comments for "Designer Drugs Marketing"