Sorry for the writer and his family's loss, however the small print of this article says that Mr. Jablow is a PR director for a Health Insurance company. Lest he not think about how guilty his industry is for America's deplorable health care system and how it erodes each day. Efficacy is not in the dictionary of our insurers and while the writer probably had the best insurance coverage to take care of his wife, most of America does not have that luxury. People make the decision between food and medicine everyday and that is due to companies like his which deny claims on any basis just to make a few extra bucks, and the healthcare industry in collusion with the insurers has lead to more bankruptcies and financial pain than any other. Just saying.
9
The only drugs that should be allowed to advertise are over-the-counter. Doctors hate the ads, which raise expectations and create inappropriate demands for treatment. The way I look at it, if there's a medicine for my cancer or whatever, my doctor will know about it before I see it on TV, and he'll prescribe it.
6
In the 1970s the public pushed for direct to consumer advertising for prescription medications. You got what you asked for. A doctor could easily have sorted through this data to decide if the drug would be helpful for a particular patient. But not the patients come demanding drugs they saw on TV. I am tired of swimming upstream. If they want it ... they get it. Sorry.. you get what you ask for.
3
As a participant in a clinical trial, the drug was probably provided free of charge. Not true for the average customer. Checking on the average price of Opdivo, its about $15,000 for a course of therapy. Several courses may be necessary for the treatment of metastatic melanoma for which it can be highly effective in 35% or so of patients or recurrent advanced Hodgkins disease, perhaps effective for 75%. "BUT DON'T WORRY, INSURANCE WILL COVER IT." Its all about the money. How are prices like this justified? Research and bringing a drug to market, is surely expensive, but big pharma spends more annually on retail advertising then research. It is a national disgrace that advertising prescription drugs to the lay public is permitted. And what advertising it is-from sex in bathtubs to superman figures for statins (cholesterol lowering drugs) to taking the grand kids fishing.
35
Right up there with the latest ad for the HPV vaccinations that have children asking their parents 'did you know?' that there was a vaccine that might have prevented their resumed cancer. In fact, these vaccines are not all that reliable. They came out when my daughter was an adolescent and, almost against my better judgement, I had her take the series. While in college, she still developed HPV and has had some minor cervical dysplasia. No, she isn't very likely to ever develop cancer... but that's what the drug companies want you to believe. Make sure your kids get these 3 shots or they'll develop cancer. NOT, if you have your kids get these shots, there is a chance that it will head off HPV, which can (but likely won't) lead to cancer.
14
My heart goes out to Mr. Jablow and his family. The arrogance of big Pharma is both legendary and breath taking.
Big Pharma advertises many drugs that have questionable value and whose side effects are often worse than the initial complaint. They advertise drugs to deal with the side effects of other drugs they have pushed with the same kind of misleading music, dancing and happy families. It's appalling.
Unfortunately for the unincorporated humans who live in this country Big Pharms uses us as ginnea pigs for their post sale drug trials and takes billions in tax payer dollars to develop the drugs and then gouges us to use them. How do they get away with this? We have the best government Money can buy! Lobbyists go through the revolving doors and dine with the the president. Unincorporated humans don't matter but profits do. Once TPP goes through it will only get worse as we export this disgusting system over the world!
Again my thoughts are with Mr. Jablow and his family. I applaud his courage in writing this op-ed.
Big Pharma advertises many drugs that have questionable value and whose side effects are often worse than the initial complaint. They advertise drugs to deal with the side effects of other drugs they have pushed with the same kind of misleading music, dancing and happy families. It's appalling.
Unfortunately for the unincorporated humans who live in this country Big Pharms uses us as ginnea pigs for their post sale drug trials and takes billions in tax payer dollars to develop the drugs and then gouges us to use them. How do they get away with this? We have the best government Money can buy! Lobbyists go through the revolving doors and dine with the the president. Unincorporated humans don't matter but profits do. Once TPP goes through it will only get worse as we export this disgusting system over the world!
Again my thoughts are with Mr. Jablow and his family. I applaud his courage in writing this op-ed.
17
My sympathy to Mr. Jablow and his family.
However, I would hope that he would consider the far reaching implications of his suggestion.
The First Amendment is a hard taskmistress because it protects all speech content from government manipulation or censorship for the reason that it is better to have the freedom of opinion however misguided than to allow government functionaries decide what speech is permissible and what is not.
Once the government is granted power to censor medical ads it will have the power to censor any ads or opinions that might arguably fail to meet someone's expectations.
However, I would hope that he would consider the far reaching implications of his suggestion.
The First Amendment is a hard taskmistress because it protects all speech content from government manipulation or censorship for the reason that it is better to have the freedom of opinion however misguided than to allow government functionaries decide what speech is permissible and what is not.
Once the government is granted power to censor medical ads it will have the power to censor any ads or opinions that might arguably fail to meet someone's expectations.
3
One of the most shocking discoveries I made when I first visited US was indeed the existence of drug ads, directed to patients (I'm a physician).
13
Matt, I'm sorry for your loss. Thank you for speaking up. Having lost my wife to cancer two years ago, I would add that the prevalence of cancer treatment advertising is as difficult and painful for our surviving children who are also bombarded with words of false hope but who do not have the knowledge or emotional maturity to look past them. I wish the advertisers would consider the impact on a motherless eight year old girl hearing "Cancer, I will crush you" from a female radio narrator. As I scramble to change the station, I certainly know what I'd like to crush.
28
I don't disagree with your comments. I just wanted to point out that it is entirely possible that your wife received the placebo, not the actual drug.
9
I've seen the ad on TV many times and know that it's dishonest, cruel and misleading. Bottom line: While some (very few) lung CA patients may live longer with this medication, the manufacturer is aiming for a monetary windfall based on the desperate hopes of patients and their families.
11
I have wondered how those marketing this drug in this way sleep at night. The answer is just fine because money and market share are the only gauges of their success. May they feel the shame they deserve.
I looked closely at this ad and found the "live longer" claim is an extra three months, at a cost of hundreds of thousands, for extremely sick cancer patients, who are dying and not attending their grandchild's little league games.
I hope the "a chance to live longer" ad will finally start the overdue movement to stop consumer advertising for drugs. This is sick stuff.
I looked closely at this ad and found the "live longer" claim is an extra three months, at a cost of hundreds of thousands, for extremely sick cancer patients, who are dying and not attending their grandchild's little league games.
I hope the "a chance to live longer" ad will finally start the overdue movement to stop consumer advertising for drugs. This is sick stuff.
13
I am sorry for your family's suffering and grief.
Ads for anything are ads. They are meant to make you believe in fairytales. Of course it is disgraceful that our guv'ment allows drug-company advertisements.
But it does, and it's the job of the patient, the patient's family and the patient's doctor to frankly discuss treatment options, backed up by relevant studies or statistics.
And--yes--to demand that these ads be disallowed.
What is the stance of each candidate for President on this issue?
Ads for anything are ads. They are meant to make you believe in fairytales. Of course it is disgraceful that our guv'ment allows drug-company advertisements.
But it does, and it's the job of the patient, the patient's family and the patient's doctor to frankly discuss treatment options, backed up by relevant studies or statistics.
And--yes--to demand that these ads be disallowed.
What is the stance of each candidate for President on this issue?
4
This is an extremely sad story. Mr. Jablow should be commended for his bravery taking-on, what clearly is, a sick ethically-compromised pharma industry, deep in bed with both Cancer docs and also Madison Avenue.
However, it doesn't end there. Count both the FDA and the press as more-than willing, attaboy-seeking, co-conspirators. In this case, the timing of the NYT's highly positive spin of Opdivo on July 30, less than a week before Bristol-Myers announcement, is now highly suspect. The stock's dropped 17% in one week. That sure is a lot of happy Wall-Street people on shorts.
Mr. Jablow won't win this battle alone, but he does blow a shrill whistle doesn't he. Helloooo... Federal..er, Preet?
However, it doesn't end there. Count both the FDA and the press as more-than willing, attaboy-seeking, co-conspirators. In this case, the timing of the NYT's highly positive spin of Opdivo on July 30, less than a week before Bristol-Myers announcement, is now highly suspect. The stock's dropped 17% in one week. That sure is a lot of happy Wall-Street people on shorts.
Mr. Jablow won't win this battle alone, but he does blow a shrill whistle doesn't he. Helloooo... Federal..er, Preet?
4
I think the deeper problem is the expectation in our society that a) everything has a solution and b) cancer is a "battle" to be fought and won, with victories celebrated publically while the many many losses are the private business of families.
Well, not every problem is solvable. And cancer is not a "battle." It's an illness. That will eventually kill most people who have it.
Some drugs work some of the time. That is all. And many times, there is nothing that works, and loved ones die.
My husband is scheduled to begin immunotherapy for a cancer so rare and wild even the doctors at MSK seem flummoxed. It's a GIST, BRAF wild type, that responds to ***nothing***. He's 38, he was diagnosed when he was 31. It is now unresectable, so if this doesn't work we are reaching the end of the line.
Honestly, I keep up hope for him, but I'm also realistic. I don't expect medicine to have all the answers. I know the most likely outcome is that I will be a widow by the time I'm 40 and I need to make peace with that NOW.
If we get a miracle, then I will celebrate. But rather than get caught up in the "battle" mentality we just try live our lives and appreciate every day for the gift it is. Since he was diagnosed we got married, we had two beautiful daughters, and we have had a happy life.
Appreciate every day. Seek the best treatment out there but don't expect miracles.
Everyone dies. Do the best with the time you have.
Well, not every problem is solvable. And cancer is not a "battle." It's an illness. That will eventually kill most people who have it.
Some drugs work some of the time. That is all. And many times, there is nothing that works, and loved ones die.
My husband is scheduled to begin immunotherapy for a cancer so rare and wild even the doctors at MSK seem flummoxed. It's a GIST, BRAF wild type, that responds to ***nothing***. He's 38, he was diagnosed when he was 31. It is now unresectable, so if this doesn't work we are reaching the end of the line.
Honestly, I keep up hope for him, but I'm also realistic. I don't expect medicine to have all the answers. I know the most likely outcome is that I will be a widow by the time I'm 40 and I need to make peace with that NOW.
If we get a miracle, then I will celebrate. But rather than get caught up in the "battle" mentality we just try live our lives and appreciate every day for the gift it is. Since he was diagnosed we got married, we had two beautiful daughters, and we have had a happy life.
Appreciate every day. Seek the best treatment out there but don't expect miracles.
Everyone dies. Do the best with the time you have.
41
A moving essay! I'm so sorry for your loss...
5
Dear Mr. Jablow,
I am a physicians for many years with a career in clinical medicine and in the last 14 years in the pharmaceutical industry.
My aversion to direct to consumer pharmaceutical ads did not change when I moved from clinical academic work to working on developing new drugs.
I support and agree with every word in your article and I salute to your honesty, strength and openness.
I am very sorry that your lost your wife and your kids lost their Mom.
I hope that your article will initiate a real and constructive discussion about this the clear need to eliminate the practice of direct to consumer ads.
Thank you.
EK
I am a physicians for many years with a career in clinical medicine and in the last 14 years in the pharmaceutical industry.
My aversion to direct to consumer pharmaceutical ads did not change when I moved from clinical academic work to working on developing new drugs.
I support and agree with every word in your article and I salute to your honesty, strength and openness.
I am very sorry that your lost your wife and your kids lost their Mom.
I hope that your article will initiate a real and constructive discussion about this the clear need to eliminate the practice of direct to consumer ads.
Thank you.
EK
21
These ads for prescription drugs should be banned. Many physician friends report of people showing up in their offices asking for specific drugs because they have self-diagnosed their ailment........this is not helpful.
Drugs companies seek the perfect medications to peddle---ones that "treat" a chronic condition with no side effects but that doesn't "cure anything"--in this way, they are like golf instructors, it seems to me. Put the meds to proof and the prescription in the hands of the knowledgeable professionals, please. That said, protect us also from the 'pay to play' drug companies sponsoring docs who prescribe their products willy-nilly.
Drugs companies seek the perfect medications to peddle---ones that "treat" a chronic condition with no side effects but that doesn't "cure anything"--in this way, they are like golf instructors, it seems to me. Put the meds to proof and the prescription in the hands of the knowledgeable professionals, please. That said, protect us also from the 'pay to play' drug companies sponsoring docs who prescribe their products willy-nilly.
7
I'm so sorry for the terrible loss of your wife. Doctors and drug companies perceive things differently than patients. When a patient hears that a drug will "significantly increase longevity", they tend to think in terms of years, not months. Doctors are excited about months. When my daughter had to have her gall bladder removed, her doctor told her it was a "minor procedure - bandaid surgery". Well, it WAS compared to the days when one was split wide open and spent 2 wks in the hospital and months recovering. But it wasn't like going to the dentist to have a couple of fillings. She was very surprised and her surgeon was by her reaction. When two people see things from such different perspectives, communication gaps are inevitable. My husband was told about a study that had produced similarly advertised results for his prostate cancer. It did not work for him and he later learned it only added 3-4 months to life. Yes, he would have loved 3-4 more days, but he still felt mislead.
I always gave been and still am vehemently opposed to drug ads on TV and in magazines. They simply cause the communication gap to be even greater.
I always gave been and still am vehemently opposed to drug ads on TV and in magazines. They simply cause the communication gap to be even greater.
10
As the daughter of a surgeon, I remember the ubiquitous drug salesmen who flocked to my father's office - a man who lost his best friend in medical school in the 1950"s to a drug the FDA had not thoroughly tested. A surgeon who said, "Have surgery ONLY as a last resort", who worked 40 hours a week at the same time he went to medical school and graduated third in his class.
My father distrusted Big Pharma then and would say, "Wait roughly 10 years before taking a drug 'approved' by the FDA." All of the US' regulatory agencies have been stripped of staff and dollars; the FDA is no exception. I understand if one has a terminal diagnosis the calculus would be different but Americans need to be aware of how Big Pharma's profits have soared in the past few decades. The basic research is underwritten by the Federal Government (our tax dollars at work); Big Pharma merely piggybacks on that research, adds a lot of marketing dollars and - boom - another blockbuster drug that will cure all woes.
Drug advertising through any medium should be banned. If I could put a stop to the drug companies representatives "educating" physicians with their office visits and free samples, that too would be a welcome development for the health of us all. Physicians need critical thinking skills; not prescribing based upon drug salesmen's snake oil claims.
My father distrusted Big Pharma then and would say, "Wait roughly 10 years before taking a drug 'approved' by the FDA." All of the US' regulatory agencies have been stripped of staff and dollars; the FDA is no exception. I understand if one has a terminal diagnosis the calculus would be different but Americans need to be aware of how Big Pharma's profits have soared in the past few decades. The basic research is underwritten by the Federal Government (our tax dollars at work); Big Pharma merely piggybacks on that research, adds a lot of marketing dollars and - boom - another blockbuster drug that will cure all woes.
Drug advertising through any medium should be banned. If I could put a stop to the drug companies representatives "educating" physicians with their office visits and free samples, that too would be a welcome development for the health of us all. Physicians need critical thinking skills; not prescribing based upon drug salesmen's snake oil claims.
15
I agree, and they shouldn't prescribe meds just because the patient saw it on TV and says they want it. Ban the ads (except in professional publications) and especially the salesmen because they have no legitimate place in our health care system.
2
I completely agree that direct to consumer marketing for all prescription medications is not appropriate or beneficial. I have great sympathy for his family as well, but treatment is an attempt, never a guarantee. However, I do find it ironic that this op-ed was written by someone described as a "public relations director for...an insurance company." Insurance companies also advertise directly to consumers, and their public relations and advertising seldom reflect the reality. A realistic insurance company advertisement would state "You will pay us money when you are healthy, but if you are sick (especially with an expensive, uncommon condition) we will not answer the phone, intentionally deny you coverage, change your coverage, and drown you and your health care providers in paperwork, obscure policies, and long hold times so that you cannot access treatment unless you quit your job and devote yourself full time to navigating the obscure process of utilizing benefits you paid for."
We need more people to come together and advocate for change in the FDA approval process, pharmaceutical marketing and costs, and especially in the insurance coverage to help patients, especially those who are seriously ill, have timely access to effective treatments, but also be educated and protected from the sometimes rapacious profit-driven elements within the American health care system, of which not just the pharmaceutical industry, but definitely insurance companies are involved.
We need more people to come together and advocate for change in the FDA approval process, pharmaceutical marketing and costs, and especially in the insurance coverage to help patients, especially those who are seriously ill, have timely access to effective treatments, but also be educated and protected from the sometimes rapacious profit-driven elements within the American health care system, of which not just the pharmaceutical industry, but definitely insurance companies are involved.
11
My condolences to Mr. Jablow and my commendation on his excellent article.
I worked for nearly 20 years in the pharma industry, and became completely disgusted by the fact that they put more money into marketing than they put into research of new drugs. When I worked in preclinical research, trying to develop new strategies to tackle deadly diseases, our suggested approaches were routinely thrown out and overruled by the marketing department -- because "the market for this disease is too small" (i.e. it didn't kill or disable enough people to make a profit).
Luckily I live in Europe, where there are no pharmaceutical ads on TV. But every time I visit the US, I'm horrified by the overwhelming number of unnecessary and unproved drugs that are advertised.
I worked for nearly 20 years in the pharma industry, and became completely disgusted by the fact that they put more money into marketing than they put into research of new drugs. When I worked in preclinical research, trying to develop new strategies to tackle deadly diseases, our suggested approaches were routinely thrown out and overruled by the marketing department -- because "the market for this disease is too small" (i.e. it didn't kill or disable enough people to make a profit).
Luckily I live in Europe, where there are no pharmaceutical ads on TV. But every time I visit the US, I'm horrified by the overwhelming number of unnecessary and unproved drugs that are advertised.
10
Thank Ronald Reagan for lifting the ban on advertising prescription drugs directly to the consumer. Another part of the miserable legacy of America's worst president ever. I was an advertising copywriter in 1985, when "ethical phamaceutical" marketing restrictions were lifted. It was a jaw-dropping blow to the health and well being of the public. Now, there is nothing ethical about any part of the business. And America is once again considering putting a charismatic, but totally inept know-nothing into the White House.
17
Pharma ads are intended to create demand for products among people who lack the expertise to evaluate them. That makes no sense. Big Pharma already markets itself -- often quite extravagantly -- directly to physicians, who have (or are supposed to have) the requisite expertise to decide whether to recommend any given treatment to their patients. So, patients should lose nothing by restricting drug marketing to health professionals.
3
I worked in drug research for a major pharmaceutical company for 30 years. Almost all of my sciencentist colleagues agree with you.
9
In any other business if a product was not effective. it would be withdrawn from the market. The same can be said for lots of drugs available to the public by both the medical profession and chemists. If a drug has a low success rate then it should be withdrawn from the market, as the government and insurance companies are subsidising the drugs purchase for the governments citizens. If the drug that is ineffective is withdrawn then that will make the drug companies work harder at inventing medicines that are effective and have an above average success rate.
At this moment in time the drug companies have no incentive to improve on medications that are effective for peoples illnesses because they still make profits when the ineffective product is sold. More Quality Assurance is required by the government and insurance companies when subsidising the sale of these ineffective drugs/medications.
At this moment in time the drug companies have no incentive to improve on medications that are effective for peoples illnesses because they still make profits when the ineffective product is sold. More Quality Assurance is required by the government and insurance companies when subsidising the sale of these ineffective drugs/medications.
1
I have no direct or indirect experience with lung cancer... and yet when I saw the Opdivo ad for the first time, and every time since, I've been offended by what I see as exploiting people who are ready to try everything and anything to stay alive. I'm not sure that drugs like this SHOULD be advertised, but, rather, offered to patients in consultation with their medical team with all disclaimers put forward as part of any discussion of potential benefits.
8
In saying that "Opdivo significantly increased the chance of living longer," the ad is misleadingly taking advantage of the dual meaning of the word "significantly." To the public, the word "significantly" means something like substantially, in a great way. But the drug company is using the word to mean only that the drug's outcomes are statistically significant, which means merely that they cannot entirely be explained by chance. Needless to say, this is a deliberate ploy to inspire desperate hope in its terminally ill viewers, while at the same time being factually correct.
10
The drugs may not work but the sds do. They send patients to pester doctors for the drug. The doctor can quote test results until they are blue. But give up in the face of patients' desperation and prescribe.
5
I think it should be illegal to directly market drugs to consumers, especially on television. What good comes of this, except to the drugmakers' bottom lines?
3
Nowhere in these comments do I see reference to natural, non-prescription treatments that have a long history of efficacy. If the many toxins in our environment and the processing of our foods which make them unrecognizable to the body as the nutrients the body seeks are probably causing the explosion of cancers among us, doesn't it make sense to look at healing foods in our search for cures? Better yet, deal with the causes to prevent the cancers from being such a burden in the first place. All bodies produce cancer cells, but the healthy cells can fight those cells in the proper, alkaline environment.
"the explosion of cancers among us,"....I don't think there is any evidence that the statment is true. Please provide a scientific source for your claim.
3
Cancer of almost every kind is a horrible disease. For many lung cancers, it is merciless. But throughout oncology there are some cancers that were once incurable that are now treated with significant improvements in quality and length of life or even cured. This progress occurred step by step, little by little. That is the motivation, the hope, of patients who participate in clinical trails. Many patients facing certain death are willing to take their chances. "I know only 1 in 5, get better, let me be the 1. I have nothing to lose."
If the FDA or Congress decided to stop direct to consumer drug advertising, it is likely the Supreme Court, even a more liberal one, would rule against that on First Amendment grounds. All we can expect is that the advertising is literally truthful. That doesn't always help the average consumer because what is significant to a researcher or to the FDA may not be to an individual patient.
No product actually looks and performs as well as it does in advertisements. It is sad when we are subject to this distortion about life and death issues, but we need to be skeptical as consumers.
There is another player in this when it comes to drug advertisements. A doctor (like me) must prescribe the drugs. Doctors must be skeptical, too, and look beyond the advertising slogans for the facts about new drugs. They must tell patients what they can expect, not just what they hope to hear.
If the FDA or Congress decided to stop direct to consumer drug advertising, it is likely the Supreme Court, even a more liberal one, would rule against that on First Amendment grounds. All we can expect is that the advertising is literally truthful. That doesn't always help the average consumer because what is significant to a researcher or to the FDA may not be to an individual patient.
No product actually looks and performs as well as it does in advertisements. It is sad when we are subject to this distortion about life and death issues, but we need to be skeptical as consumers.
There is another player in this when it comes to drug advertisements. A doctor (like me) must prescribe the drugs. Doctors must be skeptical, too, and look beyond the advertising slogans for the facts about new drugs. They must tell patients what they can expect, not just what they hope to hear.
1
The add states that approximately 50% of people on the trial lived 3 months longer than those not on the trial and only undergoing chemotherapy. If the add changed the word "lived" to "survived" it wouldn't sound so appealing, would it?
1
I was an oncology RN for over 20 years. My colleagues and I used to marvel at the grueling, aggressive therapies that our end-stage patients would opt for, even if they knew the benefit was slight. Most of them didn't want to hear about hospice and the word palliative made them bristle. Many of my patients who had exhausted all therapies went to Tijuana and other places to receive unproven and usually disastrous treatment. (If they survived, we often got them back to try to reverse the damage and salvage whatever time they might have had without the "alternative treatment".)
We nurses sometimes had trouble visualizing ourselves settling for diminished quality of life. But in my experience, most people want to live as long as possible at whatever cost.
Death is the end of the world for each of us. Who among us would give up the chance of a few more weeks or days, even if just for the sensation of sun on the face, or the sight of a child's face, or the touch of a hand?
We nurses sometimes had trouble visualizing ourselves settling for diminished quality of life. But in my experience, most people want to live as long as possible at whatever cost.
Death is the end of the world for each of us. Who among us would give up the chance of a few more weeks or days, even if just for the sensation of sun on the face, or the sight of a child's face, or the touch of a hand?
9
A very good reason to come to terms with one's inevitable death. Nothing will save us from it because it is the absolute, only end. There's nothing on the "other side." If so many people really believe in God's heaven, why aren't they glad to go, and end their suffering? Because they don't really believe it, they pretend, just in case. If there's a God, he knows you're pretending.
4
My condolences. I have recently lost someone I care about to an obscure form of cancer, who fought it for over a year.
Here's the question you neglect to ask: Given the information you have now, would you have told your wife to reject the opportunity to take part in the clinical trial for Opdivo?
The FTC determines what a company can and cannot say in its advertising. BMS has no doubt followed the rules the FTC has determined (most likely in conjunction with the FDA and a bevy of BMS lawyers) were appropriate.
Perhaps if there were less red tape, there would be more cures. Certainly there would be more clinical trials of more creative approaches to medical solutions.
Here's the question you neglect to ask: Given the information you have now, would you have told your wife to reject the opportunity to take part in the clinical trial for Opdivo?
The FTC determines what a company can and cannot say in its advertising. BMS has no doubt followed the rules the FTC has determined (most likely in conjunction with the FDA and a bevy of BMS lawyers) were appropriate.
Perhaps if there were less red tape, there would be more cures. Certainly there would be more clinical trials of more creative approaches to medical solutions.
3
Ever since the end of the so called "etyhical drug manufacturers, as drugs have been marketed and advertised to patients like never before, these scams are perpetrateed on the deperate. I saw this ad and I was disgusted as I understood they were making a false promise-not a wonderful 5 years of hot dogs and warm fall days at the game, but a few weeks of extra misery and horror. The broadcasters ought to be held responsible for showing such trash, if no one will hold the drug companies to any ethical standards.
1
There's a disease for every pill. Very sorry about your wife.
To advertise is to make bold claims for a product—simple claims that can be conveyed in 30 or 60 seconds. The success or failure of prescribed medications depends on highly complex circumstances. By all ethical rights prescription drugs should be considered advertising proof-products—as indeed they once were. It is one thing to hold out false hope for a new laundry detergent, quite another to offer hope of questionable merit for a human being's survival.
Cancer-Drug Ads vs. Cancer-Drug Reality
Dear Mr. Jablow,
Sorry to hear about your wife.
However there are two important relevant facts:
1) ALL medical services and products in the U.S. is a for-profit business where profits are always more important that the people buying the products that generate the profits; and
2) When it comes to cancer, some people will die sooner, others will die later. Most will die before we want them to die. But all *will* die.
Thankfully so far I seem to have good genes...and I haven't messed up any of my genes so much. My basal carcinoma in my eye sockets for probably mostly genetics, and I was fortunate to have good insurance, which paid 95%.
Dear Mr. Jablow,
Sorry to hear about your wife.
However there are two important relevant facts:
1) ALL medical services and products in the U.S. is a for-profit business where profits are always more important that the people buying the products that generate the profits; and
2) When it comes to cancer, some people will die sooner, others will die later. Most will die before we want them to die. But all *will* die.
Thankfully so far I seem to have good genes...and I haven't messed up any of my genes so much. My basal carcinoma in my eye sockets for probably mostly genetics, and I was fortunate to have good insurance, which paid 95%.
1
BMS's corporate social responsibility department should consider the deleterious effect of this advertising on the families of the 80% of the patients who don't respond, or on the families of the 20% who responded but have since deceased.
This is not advertising for mouthwash, and BMS should be a little more tactful.
This is not advertising for mouthwash, and BMS should be a little more tactful.
2
Another issue not addressed by our up for sale, corrupted worthless Congress. When is the American public going to clean house and send these K Street servants home to get honest jobs? Direct to consumer advertising is misleading and creates false hopes and unrealistic expectations. It should stop. Congress, do your job.
9
Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising does indeed have many problems, among them seeming to make promises it can't deliver.
But regarding Opdivo--it has been shown very effective for some cancers and has achieved long-term remissions in patients with malignant melanoma who failed all other treatments.
But regarding Opdivo--it has been shown very effective for some cancers and has achieved long-term remissions in patients with malignant melanoma who failed all other treatments.
8
Direct to patient prescription drug advertisements infuriate me. A typical viewer, who has no medical training and no way of reasonably determining whether the advertised medication is appropriate, can be dangerously misled.
"Tell your doctor if you have are prone to infection, have had medullary thyroid cancer, and on and on." Shouldn't your doctor be making those determinations? How would you know? Do not take if you are allergic to the ingredients in such and such a drug- again, how would you know?
But the Opdivo ads strike me as particularly cruel. Holding out tenuous hope for desperate people and their families just to make a buck is unconscionable. These ads should be banned.
My deepest sympathies to the Jablow family. May your beloved wife and mother's memory always be a for a blessing to you.
"Tell your doctor if you have are prone to infection, have had medullary thyroid cancer, and on and on." Shouldn't your doctor be making those determinations? How would you know? Do not take if you are allergic to the ingredients in such and such a drug- again, how would you know?
But the Opdivo ads strike me as particularly cruel. Holding out tenuous hope for desperate people and their families just to make a buck is unconscionable. These ads should be banned.
My deepest sympathies to the Jablow family. May your beloved wife and mother's memory always be a for a blessing to you.
6
Bravo, Mr. Jablow, for your courage in writing this piece, despite your grief. The American pharmaceutical industry has spun out of control, developing more and more incredibly expensive drugs for a variety of life-threatening diseases and then using statistical manipulation to obtain FDA approval on the basis of minimal effectiveness and then engaging in direct marketing to consumer, taking advantage of the most vulnerable. This has to change.
10
Drug ads should be banned. Millions of dollars (all the ad money gets tagged to the price of the drug, obviously), and the unwarranted anxiety and agony of thousands of patients and family members will be saved.
There are no ads for "ask your lawyer if a plea deal is right for you", or "ask your accountant if a home office is right for you".
Medical treatment decisions should be based on a doctor's professional advice based on science and the patient's personal values, after a mutual discussion.
There are no ads for "ask your lawyer if a plea deal is right for you", or "ask your accountant if a home office is right for you".
Medical treatment decisions should be based on a doctor's professional advice based on science and the patient's personal values, after a mutual discussion.
11
Federal regulations prohibit the employment of coercion for the enrollment of subjects into research studies, enrollment which is voluntary. In advertising, which is all coercion, I believe that this too should be limited by federal regulations. The election to prescribe medications should be in the hands of medical professionals and not presented to the general public in this despicable manner.
Like most -if not all - others posting comment here I too extend my condolences to Jablow family.
However, suggest reading this recent Forbes article titled Bristol-Myers' High-Risk Opdivo Lung Cancer Study Shows Challenges Of Clinical Trials for an objective assessment. Specifically: "Unfortunately, BMS’s gamble failed. It reported last week that Opdivo was no better than standard chemotherapy as first-line therapy in enhancing progression-free survival in advanced [ non-small cell lung cancer] patients"
As noted it was a clinical trial. And although we can all sympathize, it was not a guarantee.
As to the veracity of the cited commercial my quandry is why would anyone believe 1) they are better judge than their medical provider [I can't understand what all these commercial are for since that expertise is what I rely on my doctor(s) for] and 2)is everything portrayed on/in commercial advertisement unequivocally true. My goodness, as noted “A chance to live longer” is just that or was that not conveyed at time of signing up for the clinical trial.
I agree wholeheartedly with AMA, ban of "direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads." Disagree that "a good first step would be to insist that advertisements promoting drugs for life-threatening conditions be entirely forthright about outcomes." As evidenced by this very sad story, writer apparently didn't understand the most fundamental premise of clinical trial: 30 or 60 second spot vs. patient-specific consultation?
However, suggest reading this recent Forbes article titled Bristol-Myers' High-Risk Opdivo Lung Cancer Study Shows Challenges Of Clinical Trials for an objective assessment. Specifically: "Unfortunately, BMS’s gamble failed. It reported last week that Opdivo was no better than standard chemotherapy as first-line therapy in enhancing progression-free survival in advanced [ non-small cell lung cancer] patients"
As noted it was a clinical trial. And although we can all sympathize, it was not a guarantee.
As to the veracity of the cited commercial my quandry is why would anyone believe 1) they are better judge than their medical provider [I can't understand what all these commercial are for since that expertise is what I rely on my doctor(s) for] and 2)is everything portrayed on/in commercial advertisement unequivocally true. My goodness, as noted “A chance to live longer” is just that or was that not conveyed at time of signing up for the clinical trial.
I agree wholeheartedly with AMA, ban of "direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads." Disagree that "a good first step would be to insist that advertisements promoting drugs for life-threatening conditions be entirely forthright about outcomes." As evidenced by this very sad story, writer apparently didn't understand the most fundamental premise of clinical trial: 30 or 60 second spot vs. patient-specific consultation?
You can't watch the news without being bombarded with ads for these long-shot, obscure new medicines that, as the author stated, often have a very slim chance of being effective. The only reason they are on TV is because the doctors haven't been convinced they are any good, and that's why you are told "ask your doctor" about Opdivo, or whatever. Allowing this advertising is part of what is breaking the health care system; but, it's all about free speech 'ya know.
2
Thanks for sharing your family's experience Matt.
I just wanted to add my 2 cents and help clarify a few things -
1) Immunotherapy does work, though unfortunately as you noted in certain patients. The percentage of patients though varies by disease - in Melanoma over 40% of patients experience prolonged survival (years, not months). In lung cancer that percentage is lower and the duration less. However, only IO monotherapy has been tried in Lung, and combinations are expected to dramatically enhance survival via synergies.
2) It's a bit misleading to say the 1st line BMS failure means the drug doesn't work as the first treatment. Merck had a successful trial in a biomarker enriched (high PDL1+) population and various combination trials are ongoing (very promising early data has been presented at conferences such as ASCO). In hindsight BMS' trial design also wasn't the most appropriate.
3) I do agree that DTC regulations need to be reevaluated. While what pharma companies say is true (and is always vetted by the FDA) it has the potential to mislead patients who aren't aware of the language nuances.
I just wanted to add my 2 cents and help clarify a few things -
1) Immunotherapy does work, though unfortunately as you noted in certain patients. The percentage of patients though varies by disease - in Melanoma over 40% of patients experience prolonged survival (years, not months). In lung cancer that percentage is lower and the duration less. However, only IO monotherapy has been tried in Lung, and combinations are expected to dramatically enhance survival via synergies.
2) It's a bit misleading to say the 1st line BMS failure means the drug doesn't work as the first treatment. Merck had a successful trial in a biomarker enriched (high PDL1+) population and various combination trials are ongoing (very promising early data has been presented at conferences such as ASCO). In hindsight BMS' trial design also wasn't the most appropriate.
3) I do agree that DTC regulations need to be reevaluated. While what pharma companies say is true (and is always vetted by the FDA) it has the potential to mislead patients who aren't aware of the language nuances.
3
I do not think prescription drugs should be marketed to the public. Period. "
Pharmaceutical companies should be encouraged to inform doctors (and provide documentation, publications, etc.), but the average person does NOT have the medical/pharmacology training to discern whether they should take a drug. We have more than enough people completely ignoring sound medical advice and succumbing to all sorts of quackery, and frankly these ads don't combat this Google My Way to Health attitude.
Stop wasting money on drug ads and manipulating people into using products that may not be to their best benefit.
Pharmaceutical companies should be encouraged to inform doctors (and provide documentation, publications, etc.), but the average person does NOT have the medical/pharmacology training to discern whether they should take a drug. We have more than enough people completely ignoring sound medical advice and succumbing to all sorts of quackery, and frankly these ads don't combat this Google My Way to Health attitude.
Stop wasting money on drug ads and manipulating people into using products that may not be to their best benefit.
3
Patients are caught in the middle of two greedy monoliths, big pharma and lawyers. Big pharma will charge exhorbitant prices for drugs, for which they will fail to reveal the side effects. When patients suffer serious adverse effects, the lawyers come along with the suits, driving prices up even more, although indirectly. What a system.
2
how could you overlook the elephant in the room? Big insurance. Without our bizarre system putting our lives into paper shufflers, NONE of this would exist.
5
I vividly remember watching an Opdivo commercial a couple of months ago and thinking how vague and misleading the message seemed to be. I remember thinking that patients who are in that moment of their lives are very unlikely to be living as they seemed to in the commercial.
Many of these drug commercials are simply creating false hope on people who are clinging to whatever has the slightest chance of igniting a miracle. That is outright emotional manipulation. Very sad... I don't really know how much this Opdivo treatment costs but I'll bet it is not cheap.
You can argue that perhaps extending a patient's life by three months can give him/her the opportunity to see a son/daughter graduate, or get married, or be born... Perhaps then the commercial is not as deceitful, but we can all agree the situation won't be as merry as the actors are suggesting.
Many of these drug commercials are simply creating false hope on people who are clinging to whatever has the slightest chance of igniting a miracle. That is outright emotional manipulation. Very sad... I don't really know how much this Opdivo treatment costs but I'll bet it is not cheap.
You can argue that perhaps extending a patient's life by three months can give him/her the opportunity to see a son/daughter graduate, or get married, or be born... Perhaps then the commercial is not as deceitful, but we can all agree the situation won't be as merry as the actors are suggesting.
3
My wife was a fortunate one (so far) our primary care physician order an x ray of her lungs as part of her yearly physical and stage 1A lung cancer was detected. She subsequently had surgery at NYU by Dr. Crawford to remove the part of her lung that was affected and she is fine after 6 years. Lets praise the medical care, drug companies. fine doctors and institutions that make up the best medicine practiced in the world. These are very difficult diseases and our system is still the best, despite the impediments that Obamacare has imposed on us. We are grateful for our doctors and hospitals that take care of all of us and need more of the personal care that existed before Obamacare took over.
3
Note that "the best system" is only for those with the money to afford it. In the rest of the industrialized world - the truly civilized world, unlike the US - you don't have to prove you can pay to be treated for cancer. And if you follow the facts on the Affordable Care Act, as reported in the NY Times recently, you will note that many people who could not afford health insurance in the US - truly a gatekeeping part of "the best system" - are now being covered, and can thank the ACA for that. As for personal care - beware. As physicians become employees of healthsystems, this is discouraged - every one is replaceable in those systems. That is not part of the ACA, but the free market economy that the GOP loves so much but protects not at all - at least, not domestically.
6
Before Obamacare took over millions fewer people had access to health care at all. I am Glad your wife is well and wish that all Americans could have access to the kind of care your family has.
3
john-- glad your wife's treatment was positive. But this is not a story about YOU. Your claims that we have the best medical care in the world are outright falsehoods. There is not a study in the world that would verify your thesis. For the money expended we have very poor outcomes by every metric. Obamacare neither improved our worsened healthcare; it is after all, just a health insurance christmas gift for big insurance companies.
3
I'm a retired human research ethics professional and worked at two major research institutions (Illinois and Northwestern). The FDA regulates not only clinical trials but also the marketing of all drugs. I've no doubt the FDA is aware of these ads. However, the more people who write to them directly to take issue with the ads, the more likely they will have a closer look. Many of their actions against researchers and drug companies that have "gone too far" have been spurred by reports from the public or news organizations.
3
Congressmen appropriate the budgets of the FDA, which is the root cause. Congressmen therefore have their boots on the throats of every administrative function. The more more analyzes government, my takeaway is that Congressmen should serve almost exclusively as a service liaison for constituents and beyond that has very little value. And besides, what expertise does a lawyer have when it comes to medicine, science, environment, energy, etc.
First, my sincerest condolences for the loss of your wife, Ronna, Mr. Jablow. Second, thank you for writing this much-needed-to-be-said op-ed. The Opdivo ad has often aired during the Sunday night '60 Minutes" program and every time it does, my blood pressure rises and I'm filled with outrage. The ad does nothing more than prey on the hopes, fears and very heightened emotions of those who are afflicted with terminal Stage 4 lung cancer. Given Opdivo's lack of efficacy, the ad is nothing more than a fraud and a crime. Bristol-Myers Squibb apparently has no shame.
6
It is not just prescription drug advertising that is misleading -- how about ads for hospitals that essentially say, "Someone came here and because of our doctors is alive today." Often this is accompanied by a narrative that other places had given up on this patient. If you buy a Chevrolet instead of a Ford because of an advertisement, and it turns out that you liked your neighbor's Ford better, what have you lost by choosing the "wrong" product? Maybe money. But what if you choose the "wrong" hospital? Or prescription drug? Your health? Your life? My wife also died, in the course of a day, after I brought her to an ER with what we thought was a bad flu that turned out to be septic shock brought on by the menningococcal bacteria. If I ever see an ad for a hospital saying, "We treat sepsis better," I will probably throw my shoe through the set. The medical profession should not be like the automobile industry, trying to get us to buy a "better" products. All should be working together to keep as many of us healthy and alive as possible. The capitalist/consumer model is inappropriate. If it is, then the medical profession itself is broken. By the way, there was a $10,000-a-dose prescription drug available for sepsis called Xigris. The specifics of my wife's condition didn't make her eligible for its use. A few years later, after hundreds of millions in sales, it was withdrawn when further studies showed it to be ineffectual.
6
Why are any prescription drugs advertised on TV? Money. Drug companies made huge profits on advertised drugs. They wouldn't sell as much or make as much money if they couldn't advertise them. Do they care whether the drugs actually help anyone. Oh, sure. Is that why they advertise? Nope. Congress should prohibit advertisement of prescription drugs. The ads are misleading and serve no one's interest but the drug companies. Broadcasters make a lot of money on them too.
4
Here is the bottom line of this article: Opvido gave 20% of the people taking it a significant chance of living longer, at a median increase of three months longer than standard chemotherapy. YET, Mr. Jablow finds its promotion based on these facts to be misleading and exploitive. The REAL QUESTION then, is WHY is standard chemotherapy, which is even LESS effective, so well-accepted as the correct approach for cancer patients. For the medical and pharmaceutical industries to be promoting, and encouraging hope via standard chemotherapy is that much more misleading and exploitative. Mr. Jablow's bitterness should be shared by all families who received nothing for there loved ones from chemotherapy but the agony of chemo-induced illness during the last months or weeks of an already sad death by cancer, and by the doctors who repeatedly allow their patients to endure unneeded extra suffering for the hope of a short extension of a miserable death experience.
4
The tens of billions of dollars spent by Big Pharma in prescription drug advertising are added to the cost of those drugs, so that it is the consumer who ends up paying for the commercials. These commercials are no longer free speech when the cost is forced on the public instead of deducted from corporate profits, and they should be banned.
The immorality of the for-profit drug industry is most evident when you are presented with a case where, in order to extend a loved one’s life, perhaps your mother, for a few months, you may have to sell your house to pay for the costs. These are mafia-style extortion tactics, and they are perfectly legal thanks to a completely useless Congress that refuses to do any meaningful work.
The immorality of the for-profit drug industry is most evident when you are presented with a case where, in order to extend a loved one’s life, perhaps your mother, for a few months, you may have to sell your house to pay for the costs. These are mafia-style extortion tactics, and they are perfectly legal thanks to a completely useless Congress that refuses to do any meaningful work.
2
My sincerest condolences, Mr. Jablow, Thanks for sharing. Those ads? I refuse to watch any of them, and long for the ol' "FAST, FAST, FAST Pain relief!"
(Anacin - wasn't it?)
--John 08/09/16 - 2:28PM
(Anacin - wasn't it?)
--John 08/09/16 - 2:28PM
Remember when "drug" ads were limited to over the counter products with catchy names, jingles and hooks like "Plop, plop, fizz, fizz" and "Mother please, I'd rather do it myself"? Those ads boosted sales of common household remedies but never went so far as to suggest to anyone in their right mind that they should either memorize the scientific names of the product or challenge their physician to change their treatment regimen based upon a 60 second TV commercial. Ads for anything other than OTC drugs should be banned!
4
This is grim indeed. The triumph of marketing over medicine, and a complete betrayal of patients.
Looking at the actions in this direction of 'Big Pharma', it seems that its relationship with truth, resembles that of some currently prominent politicians - get away with what you can. And they do. The question is, how to fight back? This is not a rhetorical question. My profound sympathy - from family experiecne - to you all.
Looking at the actions in this direction of 'Big Pharma', it seems that its relationship with truth, resembles that of some currently prominent politicians - get away with what you can. And they do. The question is, how to fight back? This is not a rhetorical question. My profound sympathy - from family experiecne - to you all.
2
I don't think there's any question. Consumer pharmaceutical ads should be banned. They serve no one, except the pharmaceutical industry. They don't tell if the drug is more or less effective than another drug. There's only one thing you know for sure -- there's no generic variant on the market.
3
So sorry to hear about your loss, it sounds heartbreaking.
Your questions about why this and other prescription drugs are marketed to consumers on TV is an excellent one; one without an answer other than greed.
Doctors don't want to hear about these drugs from their patients who for the most part are unable to communicate to their physicians WHY they should administer a certain drug. We are laymen.
I am on an RA drug, one of several promoted constantly on TV particularly during the evening news. Even though my situation is not life-threatening, I find it very unpleasant to see actors and celebrities touting the efficacy of these drugs while energetically building playgrounds, dollhouses and playing golf.
Why doesn't the FDA/FCC OUTLAW this outlandish advertising? It is disallowed in over 90% of the world's countries.
Your questions about why this and other prescription drugs are marketed to consumers on TV is an excellent one; one without an answer other than greed.
Doctors don't want to hear about these drugs from their patients who for the most part are unable to communicate to their physicians WHY they should administer a certain drug. We are laymen.
I am on an RA drug, one of several promoted constantly on TV particularly during the evening news. Even though my situation is not life-threatening, I find it very unpleasant to see actors and celebrities touting the efficacy of these drugs while energetically building playgrounds, dollhouses and playing golf.
Why doesn't the FDA/FCC OUTLAW this outlandish advertising? It is disallowed in over 90% of the world's countries.
3
If ever there was a reason to yank all the pharmaceutical commercials off the air, this is it! Good riddance. Of course bug pharma has deep pockets for buying the best democracy.
4
I started seeing these ads for this and other cancer drugs several months ago in the everyday home mags like Women's Day, Family Circle and others. I became incensed because my background includes cancer nursing. As a nursing educator of over 50 years i have seen both the problems and the promise of cancer treatment. To advertise this and other cancer drugs in mags is a fraud and dangerous.Today's treatment of Cancer takes a team approach with specialists to assess the type of cell and the other clinical specialists to help the individual and family decide on the best approach. These ads give false hope and make it sound like you can choose a cancer drug like you do a toothpaste - and even that is better advised by your dentist. I called the FDA and found that their is a web site you can use to report concerns - it is Bad Drug .com.
My sympathy to this family in their loss and grief.
My sympathy to this family in their loss and grief.
8
I am all in favor of banning adds on television or in print for pharmaceutical companies. Misleading is a tame word to use. They are a complete sham. How many times do patients when they see an add, "Ask their doctor." What good doctor would say to a patient, "Great idea. let me write a prescription." Medicine should not work that way.
4
Well, they banned ads for cigarettes because they were misleading, didn't tell the whole truth, and hid things that could actually happen. So, if the drug being advertised does those very same things, maybe the ads for those should be banned, too. After all, not everyone who smokes gets a smoking related disease and dies, and not everyone using one of these cancer drugs lives. So, why don't they just tell the truth? Some live when they take the drug, some die. Sounds like a truth in advertising thing to me. The public needs to get on their case if they're exaggerating or using deceptive rose-colored images - just as they also do these days with ads for whisky. You don't see any alcoholics laying on city grates drunk as skunks in those, either. Maybe young men lured into drinking by all the bikini clad women used in these ads should also see that!
2
Well done opinion.
3
"Progression free survival time" and "Quality of life" are the some of the standardized terms the medical community uses to describe Cancer treatments in their field and to patients. Perhaps the FDA should require the use of those terms. As a patient myself, I've begrudgingly gotten used to the terms and make decisions accordingly.
2
It is never a good idea to drew on single instance, good or bad. The effectiveness of a drug is measured with statistics. No drug works for everyone.
2
The drud wouldn't be nearly as expesive if the U.S. Could collectively bargain for it, like Canada. We can't because our Republcan Congress favors drug co profits over people's lives. This is just one reason I believe Republican voters are insane, ignorant, or both.
2
Great -- So you want to collectively bargain for drugs that don't work, offer false hope, and even in some of the best cases cause more harm than good?
Oh, well -- Any excuse to blame Republicans for anything, I guess!
Oh, well -- Any excuse to blame Republicans for anything, I guess!
If direct to consumer marketing (or what I call direct to consumer misleading marketing) cant be legally eliminated, at least all advertisements should require a number needed to treat. That is, how many people need to take the drug for how long and for how much $ for 1 person to experience a benefit. Persons would be shocked for instance that about 300 men over the age of 50 need to take an anti-cholesterol drug for 5 years for 1 person to benefit!!!! True, but the commercial says 16% reduction in...neglecting to say the chance of bad outcome without the drug was only 1 in 250 to begin with.
1
I absolutely understand your pain. My husband was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer at age 51. I really didn't realize the gravity of the diagnosis. I went to the site of a foundation, which said there was hope. By the time the package from the foundation arrived, my husband was hospitalized. Three weeks later, he was dead. I see chemotherapy drugs which mention effectiveness, but only in the journal articles do they state that they provide the patient with a month more to live. I've seen treatment centers bragging about patents living with pancreatic cancer. There is one type of pancreatic cancer, islet cell (neuroendocrine), that is much rarer and with a better prognosis than the more common type, adenocarcinoma. Including statistics on islet cell patients can therefore lead to false hope among patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. I, too, wish for the truth. It would have helped me to make the last weeks of my husband's life more meaningful for me, our son and both sets of parents. There was so much left unsaid and now, it's far too late.
2
Why, exactly, are ads for prescription medications allowed on TV at all? These are not products a consumer can go to the store to buy. They require a doctor's prescription. So, why consumer-targeted TV commercials?
5
I work in advertising on the creative side and have worked on pharma advertising. My group was once assigned a prostrate cancer drug. The results of taking the drug would be just a few more months of life, yet the resulting ads seemed to promise the chance of long remission. I didn't work on that job and would refuse to in the future, too. I find this kind of advertising incredibly sleazy, even sleazier than most drug advertising. The thought of a patient thumbing through a magazine in their doctor's office and reading those ads is blatant baiting of desperate people in the last few months of their lives. I say this as a former cancer patient.
5
The only, repeat, only, requirement for FDA approval is a "statistically significant improvement in outcome" - and the Pharma companies are not required to report any negative study findings. They are allowed to re-run and fine tune clinical studies until they find a positive result, or frankly, they just re-run the study time after time until they randomly end up with a study group that shows statistically significant improvement.
No requirement to report negative studies. And, often, it isn't until the drug is in widespread use that the negative side effects are discovered. Sometimes those side effects were covered up or minimized in the original FDA application.
And often the "statistically significant" improvement is miniscule. For the Prozac approval, 47% of patients experienced reduction of symptoms of mild to moderate depression - compared to 43% improvement when given a placebo.
And so it is for so many of the new "wonder drugs". For me, "wonder drug" translates to "wonder what the side effects are, how many negative studies were buried, and wonder how much money the drug maker is making from illegally marketing the drug".
No requirement to report negative studies. And, often, it isn't until the drug is in widespread use that the negative side effects are discovered. Sometimes those side effects were covered up or minimized in the original FDA application.
And often the "statistically significant" improvement is miniscule. For the Prozac approval, 47% of patients experienced reduction of symptoms of mild to moderate depression - compared to 43% improvement when given a placebo.
And so it is for so many of the new "wonder drugs". For me, "wonder drug" translates to "wonder what the side effects are, how many negative studies were buried, and wonder how much money the drug maker is making from illegally marketing the drug".
2
Don't believe everything you see and hear and that includes politicians.
I remember a time when drug companies weren't allowed to run ads on TV and in magazines. Drug ads should be outlawed, period.
1
Why does the U.S. allow direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads ? If you don't know the answer, just ask Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Money no longer just talks in America; it now largely outshouts everything else. The current Times series on "think tanks" as corporate shills is an excellent example of how that works. Mix a corrupt, anti-government regulation ethos with the effective pitch of snake oil salesmen, and you have the recipe for this type of disaster.
That said, the reason snake oil salesmen have been profiting off people for millenia is because people want what they offer: a pretend reality.
That said, the reason snake oil salesmen have been profiting off people for millenia is because people want what they offer: a pretend reality.
2
I, too, offer my condolences to Mr. Jablow, his immediate and extended family. More importantly, I want to thank Mr. Jablow for giving voice to something well worth the discussion and re-focused attention.
Having lost one of my best friends to the same awful disease... and with the same experience as it relates to Opdivo... it reinforces to me, yet again, that promotion of prescription drugs does not belong in the consumer domain. And, given the cost of these treatments, I would think the dollars spent on advertising would go to much better use in either reducing the cost of said treatments, other research or driving public awareness as to the trade-offs in cancer care - regardless of whether or not the company has a product in that category. Knowing there may be an option to improve one's health is important, understanding and determining the trade-off for oneself should be between a patient and their physician(s).
Ads for cancer care are just the tip of the iceberg...I become enraged every time I see an ad for opiod-induced constipation. At a time when our nation is coming to terms with the impact of overmediating ourselves, to see a drug marketed to make it easier to stay on opiods is inappropriate at best.
I understand the desire to reduce bureaucracy and regulation but, when it comes to industries where consumers will never have the technical background to make such a decision, gov't needs to step in.
Having lost one of my best friends to the same awful disease... and with the same experience as it relates to Opdivo... it reinforces to me, yet again, that promotion of prescription drugs does not belong in the consumer domain. And, given the cost of these treatments, I would think the dollars spent on advertising would go to much better use in either reducing the cost of said treatments, other research or driving public awareness as to the trade-offs in cancer care - regardless of whether or not the company has a product in that category. Knowing there may be an option to improve one's health is important, understanding and determining the trade-off for oneself should be between a patient and their physician(s).
Ads for cancer care are just the tip of the iceberg...I become enraged every time I see an ad for opiod-induced constipation. At a time when our nation is coming to terms with the impact of overmediating ourselves, to see a drug marketed to make it easier to stay on opiods is inappropriate at best.
I understand the desire to reduce bureaucracy and regulation but, when it comes to industries where consumers will never have the technical background to make such a decision, gov't needs to step in.
1
it is ironic that drug adds on tv have replaced cigarette adds as the go to funding source for broadcast tv. we have gone from duping people into believing that a cancer causing product was okay to duping people into thinking that a cancer fighting product works.
3
Yes, please get these pharmaceutical ads off the air--all of them. All the money put into ads could go to lowering prices on drugs.
4
Thank you, Mr. Jablow, for your brave comment that had to be difficult for you to express. Yes, the United States and New Zealand are the only advanced countries to allow direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising, here usually in the form of network TV or magazines. "Ask your doctor" is the common phrase used during the quickly spoken admonishments about side effects or dangers to a user's health. Most doctors seem to be against such advertising. The FDA, which helped abolish tobacco ads has apparently become more susceptible to Pharma's charms than Big Tobacco's! These ads, as Mr. Jablow tellingly describes the one for Opdivo, are often misleading and in my opinion-I am not a doctor- should be either eliminated or more closely regulated.
2
For me, the shocking part of this article is the lack of progress in dealing with the form of cancer it discusses. More than thirty years ago, my 50+ mother, who never smoked, died of the same disease in the same way in the same amount of time as Ronna. To this day, the five year survival rate when she was diagnosed in 1981, stated by the article as between 1 and 5 percent, has not changed. What I want to know is, why not? Are other forms of cancer taking precedence? If so, why? How can there be so much progress with many forms of cancer and none with this one?
3
Exactly Barbara, lung cancer in non-smoking women gets scant attention as compared to breast cancer, something needs to be done. Lung cancer somehow has been stigmatized as a choice disease because of the smoking connection.
1
It's all about the pace of research. Research requires funding, yes, but also breakthroughs in technology to further the field. And remember that most lung cancer is found late - there are no screening programs for lung cancer. If inexpensive, noninvasive and reliable (meaning the statistical meanings of sensitive and specific) testing becomes available, screening would make a huge difference. We keep hearing about breath tests, even sniffer dogs, that can detect cancer - then nothing. The sensationalism of medical reporting is the problem there. But no. other forms of cancer do not take precedence, they just have more breakthroughs in genetics, biomarkers, drugs and overall technology to thank.
In a way, this reply from LuckyDog restates the problem. Why are there no screening tests or programs? I am inclined to agree with John that the disease is stigmatized as a product of a choice to smoke, but my mother was not a smoker. So the question expands: why is there so little publicity for the fact that many cases of lung cancer are not the product of smoking? Why does there seem to be no work being done on screening?
The commercialization of medical decisions in the United States should be a scandal, even in the case of medications that work and, of course, more so in the case of medications and providers of dubious value. No patient facing difficult health decisions is qualified to evaluate the claims of drug companies that show happy images while quickly and, in subdued language and tone, advising of the risks. Of course, such pitches include the always-present "Ask your doctor is ____ is right for you."
In a serious medical marketplace, patients would rely upon their physicians for their best judgments about therapies, treatments, and medications. In the United States, however, patients must navigate the sickening exploitation of their lives by drug companies seeking to maximize profits, as though they were auto makers or aluminum siding salesmen. One can only imagine the hurt and anger of those who survive their loved ones' ordeals, such as Mr. Jablow and his family.
In a serious medical marketplace, patients would rely upon their physicians for their best judgments about therapies, treatments, and medications. In the United States, however, patients must navigate the sickening exploitation of their lives by drug companies seeking to maximize profits, as though they were auto makers or aluminum siding salesmen. One can only imagine the hurt and anger of those who survive their loved ones' ordeals, such as Mr. Jablow and his family.
2
I am so sorry for Mr Jalow and his family. This thing of "closure" is nonsense and these things do not go away.
As a physician I am both appalled & angry about Pharma TV ads. The idea a physician would be influenced & actually prescribe any treatment based on a TV ad is disturbing. Yet it must work as the Pharma keep paying for them.
As a cancer patient (NH Lymphoma and iV Melanoma) I understand the urge to try novel treatments. And these new immune system treatments DO work. Just not all the time. The Survival Times can be deceptive- if the "average addition life" is nine months, that actually means that several people had zero benefit, yet some are around for years. And right now we have no way to predict who the lucky ones will be. Five years after very near death, I'm still here.
As a physician I am both appalled & angry about Pharma TV ads. The idea a physician would be influenced & actually prescribe any treatment based on a TV ad is disturbing. Yet it must work as the Pharma keep paying for them.
As a cancer patient (NH Lymphoma and iV Melanoma) I understand the urge to try novel treatments. And these new immune system treatments DO work. Just not all the time. The Survival Times can be deceptive- if the "average addition life" is nine months, that actually means that several people had zero benefit, yet some are around for years. And right now we have no way to predict who the lucky ones will be. Five years after very near death, I'm still here.
5
I'm so sorry for your loss, and now for you to have seen these unconscionable lies promoted on television. I would want to scream and pull my hair out, knowing what you knew! I can't imagine how or why these ads were allowed to give people false hope. Most people are not equipped to judge these drugs, but will put pressure on their doctors, who should know better. The stations, and networks, MUST become more responsible, by fairly judging the claims made by drug advertising, or any advertising that promotes unproven products. The FDA and the government should make these drug companies stop advertising on TV. It's nothing more than snake oil sales and false promises, and it often causes disastrous harm to the public.
3
Clinical trials are often a roll of the dice, especially when they're at stages 1 or 2. Nevertheless, bravo for speaking out. There's a difference between a "chance of living longer" and the chance of a potential cure. I'm so sorry for your experience, but I hope it will help others to make clinical trial decisions. Many people who do choose to participate do so with the knowledge that they are contributing to science and may not get a miracle cure, but that distinction needs to be clearly explained to the patient and his or her family by the clinical trial team. I'm sorry your expectations weren't managed and of course that you had to face such a difficult outcome. I hope your speaking out will bring you some peace of mind as you and your children mend.
2
and irresponsible of the Food and Drug Administration to let it.
=============
Any yet some folks insist that government is not the problem. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Jablow. I find those commercials offensive and they are using the hard sell to sell what amounts to extremely expensive snake oil.
=============
Any yet some folks insist that government is not the problem. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Jablow. I find those commercials offensive and they are using the hard sell to sell what amounts to extremely expensive snake oil.
4
Bills have been introduced in Congress that would ban advertising for the first three years following a drug approval. I hope Mr. Jablow can find a way to support those. The bar is SO low for approval for "last ditch" cancer drugs. That needs to be looked at, too. I lost a close friend in her 40s to lung cancer, a sister to breast and a mother to pancreatic. I know the pain he feels and am sorry for it.
5
Let's not forget all the smiling faces in the cancer clinic adds that give the impression that they cure everybody, when we know the survival rate for cancer is dismal!
4
Why? It is because the folks in Washington are beholden to the big pharma industry. They run the show. That is why drugs that show little efficacy are not only marketed, and sold, they cost a fortune. That is why drug prices are the highest in the world. That is why big pharma can do, say, lie, whenever, and where ever they like, and con poor, unsuspecting consumers.
3
While no one can argue that such false advertising is civilly actionable, it should be criminal. However it raises the larger problem of a economic and political environment which allows unlimited profits in key areas like healthcare. As a businessman I know well the importance of profits, yet a society that allows the rich to prey on the poor and unfortunate is unsustainable. Key areas of the economic and social economy could be protected and enhanced if profits were limited by manufactures. The more sensible rule would be where profits are allowed up to a politically approved level, and any excess be either directed towards research, or used to lower prices, either generally for the product, or on a need basis.
3
The entire genre of direct-to-the-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies is fundamentally dishonest and should be shut down.
5
David, easily said until you needed one of these drugs, and if you think the government can do a better job, ask any veteran who has to use VA hospitals.
Mr. Jablow's, I hope that time and the love of your beautiful children will ease your sorrow.
Be sure that buried somehow in the add, and impossible to read, there will be all sorts of disclaimers, carefully worded by lawyers.
Josefina Alvarez
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Be sure that buried somehow in the add, and impossible to read, there will be all sorts of disclaimers, carefully worded by lawyers.
Josefina Alvarez
Santa Fe, New Mexico
2
I'm a practicing oncologist. The company still needs doctors to subsequently market the drug and enrich investors. Many are paid fees to promote minimally useful drugs. Most doctors practice ethically, but it only takes a few unscrupulous ones to disseminate misleading information to vulnerable folks. Shameful.
62
I’ve seen people act as if lawyers after an episode of Boston Legal and pretend they’re a mathematician after an episode of Numbers. Granted, these are fictional accounts of lawyers and math whizzes where we ‘all’ know this to be so. And Ads fall into the same category. They are ‘fictions.’ and we should read and watch them as such. Of course, only 20% of stage four cancer victims respond to the drug Opdivo. And of course, advertisers are people trained in Greek and Roman mythology. However, it does raise the question; “where do we then get our ‘true’ knowledge of such drugs, or for that matter, anything?” There’s no easy answer, and as long cooperate types are ‘driving’ America; we’ll probably never have good answers and cooperative media. Meanwhile, treat all ads as FICTION, and when you truly want to know something, research it until you’re blue in the face.
A saying popularized by Mark Twain - "There are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics". Unfortunately, the clumsy wording Mr. Jablow refers to used in the Opdivo advertising is precisely to take advantage of a statistical finding to apply broadly to imply clinically relevant efficacy. This is shameful marketing by a company that knows better.
When I see the pharmaceutical commercials with their promises of long healthy lives and miracle cures, it makes me pine for the old cigarette ads with Doctors exhorting viewers to "walk a mile for a Camel!" At least you got something for your money with those products: Guaranteed addiction!
The Opdivo ads are the work of Madison Ave. charlatans who place profit over reality and it needs to stop. They advise us to "ask your Dr. if this drug is right for you"! That's lame and the FDA needs to ban this kind of predatory advertising which gives those suffering a false sense of hope!
The Opdivo ads are the work of Madison Ave. charlatans who place profit over reality and it needs to stop. They advise us to "ask your Dr. if this drug is right for you"! That's lame and the FDA needs to ban this kind of predatory advertising which gives those suffering a false sense of hope!
2
Over 550,000 people die of cancer each year in the US, or over 1,500 a day. Over 8 million Americans have died of cancer in the 15 years since 9/11. How much have we spent in response to the war on terror compared to how much we have spent on the war on cancer? Between cancer and terrorism, which is a bigger threat to our well being?
3
Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Direct to patient advertising is one of the key factors that makes the US health care system an expensive, discriminatory, wasteful mess. Surprise - patients who don't understand the nuance of drug effectiveness and get dangled a miracle cure go on to pressure their doctor to prescribe it. Surprise - many doctors do prescribe, knowing that it is a gamble, and an expensive one at that. We also know that being gatekeeper is hard and emotionally draining work, and whilst every dollar that goes to these drugs is a dollar that doesn't go to areas that are more effective, we see the patient right in front of us pleading for a chance at any cost. There are many health economics experts who could put these arguments better than I, but the issue isn't really the morality of BMS in its advertising, or the truthfulness of their advertising - its that they can advertise at all.
2
Ah the joy of free enterprise. Where you can say anything you want. Not in politics of course or against refugees, but the rest is just fine! Wonderful!
I'm so sorry for your loss.
The reality though is that in our quest to outperform the rest of the world with our free market principles, we created this whole mess by insisting on minimal regulations such as those that allow direct to consumer (DTC) ads, even when heavy regulations are morally and ethically justified to protect people.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken here but my understanding is that way back when direct ads started, big pharma wasn't even lobbying for it. it was part of our free market capitalist principles but now obviously it's turning out not to be a very sound idea.
unfortunately any attempts to stop DTC ads will likely not succeed and will probably end up at the supreme court where such attempts will be defeated.
I'm not sure what the solution is but its definitely beyond the FDA. I suspect stopping DTC ads by big pharma will take a very well organized big political movement. we better get started!
The reality though is that in our quest to outperform the rest of the world with our free market principles, we created this whole mess by insisting on minimal regulations such as those that allow direct to consumer (DTC) ads, even when heavy regulations are morally and ethically justified to protect people.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken here but my understanding is that way back when direct ads started, big pharma wasn't even lobbying for it. it was part of our free market capitalist principles but now obviously it's turning out not to be a very sound idea.
unfortunately any attempts to stop DTC ads will likely not succeed and will probably end up at the supreme court where such attempts will be defeated.
I'm not sure what the solution is but its definitely beyond the FDA. I suspect stopping DTC ads by big pharma will take a very well organized big political movement. we better get started!
As with so many things in our country today, PROFIT out ways standards.
It has infected everything.
It has infected everything.
Sincere condolences.
My husband succumbed to hormone refractory prostate cancer eleven years ago Sept. 19th. As a last-ditch effort to prolong his life, he enrolled in (as it happens) a BMS drug trial. It proved disastrous (adversely affecting his central nervous system), at which time he was removed from the trial.
Our experience was the local hospital to which he was transported in extreme distress seemed unfamiliar with the trial protocol. This was extremely frustrating and frightening. I'm not confident his outcome was ever properly reported and documented.
Cancer sucks. Length of life isn't anything without quality of life. Never having experienced anything like this before, never having aged before, and having relatively young children (daughter in college, son age fourteen), we tried everything to prolong my husband's life, only in some ways to keep him alive for a painful horror show.
Like anything, one learns from accumulated experiences. Advertising of anything cancer related leaves me cold. Consumerism through advertising of nonessential products is a necessary component of our economic system. That's fine for pantyhose and vehicles. Advertising of pharmaceuticals to a despairing population of those faced with life-threatening illness is cruel.
BMS - pull the advertising. Even if life span is minutely extended, the quality of life is likely not one of attending children's baseball games. If you won't do it, Congress should act.
My husband succumbed to hormone refractory prostate cancer eleven years ago Sept. 19th. As a last-ditch effort to prolong his life, he enrolled in (as it happens) a BMS drug trial. It proved disastrous (adversely affecting his central nervous system), at which time he was removed from the trial.
Our experience was the local hospital to which he was transported in extreme distress seemed unfamiliar with the trial protocol. This was extremely frustrating and frightening. I'm not confident his outcome was ever properly reported and documented.
Cancer sucks. Length of life isn't anything without quality of life. Never having experienced anything like this before, never having aged before, and having relatively young children (daughter in college, son age fourteen), we tried everything to prolong my husband's life, only in some ways to keep him alive for a painful horror show.
Like anything, one learns from accumulated experiences. Advertising of anything cancer related leaves me cold. Consumerism through advertising of nonessential products is a necessary component of our economic system. That's fine for pantyhose and vehicles. Advertising of pharmaceuticals to a despairing population of those faced with life-threatening illness is cruel.
BMS - pull the advertising. Even if life span is minutely extended, the quality of life is likely not one of attending children's baseball games. If you won't do it, Congress should act.
2
Many a comedian has gone to town on the listed side effects of even the most established pharmaceuticals advertised on late night cable TV. The reading of those possible side effects including lethal ones take up half of the 30 second ad and they're read with the speed of an auctioneer. We American dreamers are supposedly incorrigibly optimistic, we insist on believeing "Everything's gonna be all right," when we know deep down that it may be anything but. This is an important piece of writing and I applaud Matt Jablow for doing it. His wife Ronna and family are very brave and I send my heartfelt condolences for their loss.
1
Those pharma commercials are sickening. I am a cancer survivor of 14 years but suffer from severe cardiomyopathy as a result of chemo and a stem cell transplant. I have lived with heart failure for 11 years and fortunately can do most anything I like. Only a few hospitalizations but am very stable. The Entresto commercials state that for heart failure patients the sun may not come out tomorrow and features off-key renditions of the song "The Sun will Come Up Tomorrow" by heart failure patients.
My doctor suggested I take Entresto and I refused. Why should we rock the boat. The commercial alone along with the cost would have been a good enough reason not to take it.
My doctor suggested I take Entresto and I refused. Why should we rock the boat. The commercial alone along with the cost would have been a good enough reason not to take it.
2
The thoughts and experiences of Mr. Jablow rang true for me. I also am a spouse of a cancer patient who died (we're a pretty common lot). Hope is important for anyone being treated for cancer or other tenacious diseases, and chasing trials and new therapies is part of the "courageous fight" so many patients engage in.
But what big pharmaceutical companies are offering in the type of commercial described in this piece is unrealistic hope, hyped hope, airbrushed hope or exaggerated hope. Those extra few weeks or months a patient may gain by "asking if (fill in the blank) is right for you" are often not spent at Little League games or walking on beaches. Perhaps some cancer patients and their families find value in extending life at any price; I suspect, like me, most people who have experienced this type of extension would not do it the same way again.
But what big pharmaceutical companies are offering in the type of commercial described in this piece is unrealistic hope, hyped hope, airbrushed hope or exaggerated hope. Those extra few weeks or months a patient may gain by "asking if (fill in the blank) is right for you" are often not spent at Little League games or walking on beaches. Perhaps some cancer patients and their families find value in extending life at any price; I suspect, like me, most people who have experienced this type of extension would not do it the same way again.
4
As a physician, I remain horrified by how misleading direct to consumer advertising is.
Patient's ask about treatments they've seen on television, usually one's they should not be on.
Pharma should take the money they put into advertising and use it to fund research , or lower the prices of medicines, especially for Medicare patients.
Patient's ask about treatments they've seen on television, usually one's they should not be on.
Pharma should take the money they put into advertising and use it to fund research , or lower the prices of medicines, especially for Medicare patients.
2
"Opdivo didn't help my wife, or almost anyone else. So why can Bristol-Myers Squibb market it on TV?"
Good question. Let's hope someone "answers" it.
Good question. Let's hope someone "answers" it.
2
The drug companies run the ads because there are always some suckers who fall for them.
1
Cancer is a cruel disease. My 48 yr old wife passed from stage 4 lung cancer within 6 months of being diagnosed. It's a matter of quality and quantity. She had chemo and radiation, both brutal for her since she already had a chronic disease. I wished I could've found a way to get Optivo for her prior to that, since the side effects are less harsh. Insurance and clinical protocols were the barriers; not even out of pocket choice was given to us. At least she would've had a better quality and less suffering. At the end she was throwing up bile and her heartbeat was over 150 bps for over 12 hours before she took her last breath. Not the way I would want my worst enemy to leave this earth. Yes, the pharm companies are spinning the hope a bit too much. More data and more education to the patient and patient family are needed. That's not just the responsibility of the physicians but also of the entire healthcare ecosystem. And give the options to the patient. Medicine is not an exact science and there is currently no cure for cancer, just hope. Hope that one can stay alive long enough so that cancer research can catch up.
24
Unfortunately, more data are obtained through trial and failure and failure and failure and the occasional success.
In spita of great medical advances, Big Pharma knows, or should know, we have a long way to go before we claim victory inour fight for cancer. Advertising to the public directly, bypassing any sane caution, is an affront to decency and reality. The question is, how do we stop crass commercialism suggesting greed rather than service and valuable information for the public, eager for good news but, often enough, disappointed with the results, often dismal survival in spite of the glorified benefits of a given drug? Sensible regulation with teeth, to stop the abuse, seems necessary and just. The F.D.A. cannot serve two disparate bosses at the same time, and, at the end, leave the public 'wanting', confused and even betrayed by a too-rosy a picture.
2
I am very sorry for the Jablow family's loss. Cancer is a devastating diagnosis. However, many patients ARE helped by Opdivo, and that includes my husband and former President Jimmy Carter. The immunotherapies are a great therapeutic advance, even if they only help perhaps 25% of patients and they are the beginning of a whole new avenue in cancer treatments that are less toxic and more effective. And for a small handful of patients, its not a "modest improvement." Some live cancer free for many years, even after being given a terminal diagnosis. And this is only the beginning. . .
5
According to the google JImmy Carter was on pembrolizumab or Keytruda, not Opdivo. Opdivo's results are meager and being oversold. The expense of all these misleading commercials is added into the cost of treatment.
1
Jimmy Carter did not have Lung Cancer. As a 2 time cancer survivor I am digusted by these commercials. If they are to continue they need to clearly state the difference between statistical significance and meaningful increase in survival. They are indeed only the beginning and commercials need to make that clear!!
1
DTC marketing worked so well in the pharmacological realm why not the oncological?
I am so sorry for your loss Mr. Jablow. I agree with almost all that you have written. Anything I see advertised on tv ads I dismiss immediately, because the way i understand it, these ads represent corporate greed, and are mostly misleading, as the companies advertising their products are obviously biased, and know that the public in most part, is quite gullible. Therefore one must do extensive research before one decides to take any of these products. In the case of your wife, it was a trial, and there, one holds on to the hope that these trials will work. But, as time passes and one reads and researches, one cannot believe the fact that these meds are being advertised as the saviors of the world. And this is not the first nor the last.
The FDA is in cohoots with big pharma, that's a tremendous problem. How many law suits do we hear of about medications and products, that have killed and made people sick for a huge part of their life, where the manufacturer had known that the product was defective?
It's always about the money, the stocks, not us...
The FDA is in cohoots with big pharma, that's a tremendous problem. How many law suits do we hear of about medications and products, that have killed and made people sick for a huge part of their life, where the manufacturer had known that the product was defective?
It's always about the money, the stocks, not us...
3
My cousin's husband followed your wife's path with the same timeline, and the same result. Opdivo gave them hope, but nothing else.
5
So very sorry for your loss. All patients need to ask: "How many patients have tried the treatment? What percentage had a response?" And most important, "How long did the 'response' last?" Sometimes the response is not even a few months, but only a few weeks. The decision to try the treatment or not is a deeply personal one, but everyone facing this choice has the right to complete information, not just the gauzy images in the ads.
5
The direct marketing of prescription medications has always been and is a disgrace that should be stopped. From made up maladies as restless leg syndrome, IBS, and fibromyalgia to the endless barrage of "erectile dysfunction" drugs. The costs to the health system or extraordinary since it implies that everything in life is fixable by some new expensive pill whether a real medical condition or not. To make matters worse now the superbly expensive cancer treatments are jumping into the bandwagon. As well pointed out by this article these, new miracle cures are often less than miraculous, simply piling more expense on an already superbly expensive problem. As most doctors I have been dismayed at this problem and the repercutions it has on the overall medical system.
11
Mr. Jablow, thank you so much for sharing your experience, and for putting it the service of a fuller public dialogue about cancer care and new technologies. I'm a medical oncologist, and now one of my jobs is to try to help patients and families make sense of the optimistic advertising and hype versus the reality of their own path. Then as others have mentioned here there is the difficulty of weighing benefit at the level of a group of people (ie the statistical benefit) vs an individual (who may benefit or not benefit). I've suspected for many years that the ads don't help--but you have put the harm into a more personal perspective than i could have imagined. Thank you.
5
I find the Opdivo ad so patently offensive that I change the channel.
10
Unfortunately, the FDA does not have the highest scientific standards as "bars" for drug approval (actually not approval, but offering no opposition to marketing the drug). This is what happens when drug companies, with all their millions in play, have access to the "administration".
2
Optivo is also ridiculously expensive. 12 thousand dollars a month.
6
It is simply criminal, esther.
3
But who payed for this poor woman's opdivo, certainly not the patient or her family. The problem is we all pay for these $150K drugs that bring minimal benefit. I bet the doctors that administered this drug made a few thousand bucks to boot.
1
Thank you, Mr. Jablow. I am a palliative care physician and spend sorrowful time with families like yours. I hope your words are put into actions and these misleading ads are blocked. Over and over, patients and their loved ones lament the false hope that deprived them of the precious time they could have spent living their lives the way they would have preferred--focusing on care directed at comfort, reconciliation, time with family, spiritual growth and enjoying the immense pleasures of being in nature, giving and receiving love, forgiveness and connection.
95
Thank you Mr. Jablow - and I am deeply sorry for your loss. But maybe the problem is not with this particular drug, but with the entire business model for drug marketing. Advertising is lying, plain and simple. An ad that suggests buying a laundry product will lead to having more fun with your kids is a blatant attempt to make you believe something that is not true. We are willing to put up with it for most products, because in the end, whether you buy Tide or Gain does not matter one bit. But ads for drugs or hospitals that show everyone happy and healthy should give us all pause. Lying about soap isn't an issue, when it is life or death, it is everything.
1
I've started watching some television shows with closed captioning on and have thus noticed one similarity in all of these direct to consumer ads like Opdiva. When the announcer is making the required admissions about side effects coincides with the parts about people enjoying life. It makes it easy to miss the "serious side effects, including death" when the joyful life-affirming ads are playing. Direct to consumer advertising, particularly that on television, should be outlawed.
1
A few years ago, Claritin got FDA approval because "it was better than nothing."
(http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/magazine/the-claritin-effect-prescript...
When the standard to get FDA approval is whether taking the drug is "better than nothing", you get results like the one described by Mr. Jablow.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/magazine/the-claritin-effect-prescript...
When the standard to get FDA approval is whether taking the drug is "better than nothing", you get results like the one described by Mr. Jablow.
3
this is the great secret of most new medications for cancer: for an enormous cost and often debilitating side effects, some few patients may live weeks or months longer. I honor my friends and relatives who have opted out of this illusion to die with dignity and in the knowledge that their loved ones and other benificiaries may beneti.
2
Perhaps because of my involvement in health care delivery for 50 years, and my advanced age (I'm 72), I have adopted this attitude for myself. In fact, among older physicians and nurses, I see this approach taken more and more often for themselves-I know many who have refused treatments that they know will not cure or even make them more comfortable in their last months. They seek good, comfortable, palliative care and-once they become uncomfortable and are "ready to go", most would seek an early end to their life were it legally available.
1
The FTC should band direct to consumer advertising by Big Pharma and all the ambulance chasers. First you have advertisement for a drug, then you have a lawyer ad for "have you been hurt by X". Big Pharma preys on the consumer and DTC advertising does nothing but promote expensive drugs that are in many cases no better and the lawyers are the scavengers. Until we fix some of these issues our economy will never move on
In addition to banning TV ads for pharmaceuticals, print ads should be illegal as well. Go to any doctor's office and in the waiting room are magazines with plenty of ads for drugs, plus glossy brochures as well.
Let's ban ALL cigarette advertising while we're at it. I wouldn't be surprised if ads for Opdivo follow ads for Marlboro.
Let's ban ALL cigarette advertising while we're at it. I wouldn't be surprised if ads for Opdivo follow ads for Marlboro.
1
Thank you. This was really worth saying!
A chance to increase your already doomed life by a few weeks to maybe a couple of months while heartily running up your insurance costs so everyone else can pay higher premiums in the future while Big Pharma sees better bottom line results. Who could resist? Send me some now. Sell it on late night infomercials. Advertise it as "The American Way" for it surely is.
1
To say that pharmaceutical advertising us about informing the public about treatment options is rather like saying that payday loan advertising is about educating public about the handling of personal finances. And in this respect, Big Pharma is every bit as predatory as the payday lender industry.
3
Direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs, especially drugs like this, is wrong. It does nothing but promote the economic interests of drug companies. The practice should be banned. These ads do nothing to promote patient or physician education. The are aimed a "selling product."
The most fundamental basic tenet of medical ethics is that, above all else, the physician must put the best interests of the patient first. Pharmaceutical companies put shareholder value above all else--and this is the fundamental rub. These companies are out for their own economic self-interest, not the interests of patients with cancer. Their interests are secondary.
We need several major reforms: Ban direct-to-consumer advertising, which only drives up unwarranted drug costs (most of which are actually borne not by companies but by NIH-funded basic science research at America's universities). Second, we need the allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with the companies involved. Self-serving congressmen have blocked this for years. Third, we need a system whereby insurance companies will pay for experimental treatments of new therapies IF and ONLY IF patients are enrolled in NIH-approved and vetted clinical trials. And finally, we need a health-care system in which everybody is covered irrespective of where (of even if) they work.
The most fundamental basic tenet of medical ethics is that, above all else, the physician must put the best interests of the patient first. Pharmaceutical companies put shareholder value above all else--and this is the fundamental rub. These companies are out for their own economic self-interest, not the interests of patients with cancer. Their interests are secondary.
We need several major reforms: Ban direct-to-consumer advertising, which only drives up unwarranted drug costs (most of which are actually borne not by companies but by NIH-funded basic science research at America's universities). Second, we need the allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with the companies involved. Self-serving congressmen have blocked this for years. Third, we need a system whereby insurance companies will pay for experimental treatments of new therapies IF and ONLY IF patients are enrolled in NIH-approved and vetted clinical trials. And finally, we need a health-care system in which everybody is covered irrespective of where (of even if) they work.
4
Some perspective is needed here. There are no guarantees in life, something that is inherently obvious. Information that may cause pain for some may be lifesaving for others. To deprive the latter to spare the former is simply ridiculous. Empowering the patient is far better than reverting the paternalistic system that stifled medicine for so long.
3
It is time we realize that much of the cancer treatment industry is just that, an industry, that sucks larger and larger amounts of dollars from patients based on their hope for a miracle.
I realize advances have been made over the last decade. But we are still a long way from a cure. Meanwhile people's savings are wiped out for the hope of a few more months of life. All the while, the stock prices of pharma companies continue to climb.
I realize advances have been made over the last decade. But we are still a long way from a cure. Meanwhile people's savings are wiped out for the hope of a few more months of life. All the while, the stock prices of pharma companies continue to climb.
5
Only two countries allow Drug ads on TV -- the US and New Zealand. The ads are an abomination and should be outlawed. What amazes me is that the medical profession -- given that almost all the ads say " ask your doctor' -- hasn't stood up to denounce these ads, whose main purpose is to swell the pharma companies' profits, while inducing fear and hypochondria in the populace.
5
Go to a doctors office. Virtually everything is provided by the drugs companies from pens and pads and lunch all the way to symposiums in Hawaii.
The doctors are the largest part of the problem.
The doctors are the largest part of the problem.
1
Mr. Jablow may think the wording of the ad "Increase your chance of living longer" is clumsy, but the drug marketers chose those words carefully. They couldn't say "you'll live longer" since their own data doesn't show that, but if even one person out of 5000 lives longer when using the drug, it's true that the drug increases the chances, albeit by very very small amounts. Marketing people know no shame.
6
I’m so sorry for your loss. Your story is my story too, and the story of thousands. My wife who never smoked was diagnosed with stage-4 lung cancer at age 46 and died 20 months later, 4X longer than her prognosis – thanks to clinical trials similar the one you reference. Those extra months were critical to putting our world in order for our two young kids who were 7 and 5 at the time. The real issue, specifically with lung cancer is a lack of awareness and research funding. Consider these facts. 1.) Lung cancer kills over 150,000 people each year in the US – more than breast, melanoma, prostate and colon cancers – combined! 2.) 50% of those diagnosed today are non-smokers. 3.) Most lung cancer is most often found in late stages when it’s often too late for long-term survival 4.) Lung cancer research is underfunded vs. others in great part because of the stigma of smoking. When a drug has a positive impact on 1 in 5, that's a big deal in the lung cancer world - unfortunately. To improve that number, we need more awareness that everyone is susceptible to lung cancer and we need more research funding. I work for that every day... Carry on Matt and family, you are all in my thoughts.
104
My good friend's sister had exactly the same story as your and Matt's wives. She was a picture of health, very athletic, and never smoked, ever, and never worked or spent time in a smoking environment. The first symptom of her metastatic lung cancer was a bone met to her arm. She immediately took herself to the Mayo Clinic for state of the art treatment, which failed, and she died within 18 months of being diagnosed. Through out her treatment, she said that almost every single physician, nurse, technician, etc. who dealt with her asked her (within the first few minutes of any contact) how much she had smoked. And when she told them "never", they acted as if they questioned her truthfulness. She believed that the lack of research focused on such a common and awful cancer as hers was largely due to an institutionalized belief in medicine that most of the people who die of lung cancer brought it on themselves, so why waste money on researching a cancer that can easily be prevented. How awful it must feel to have professionals like physicians and nurses making judgments about your character and deciding whether you are "deserving"(whether you were a smoker or not), when you are fighting for your life.
1
Naturally I am very sorry for you and your family's loss, Mr. Jablow. It must be especially difficult for you to come to terms with the facts of deceptive advertising by companies you work with as an insurance industry executive. However, it's people like you who hold the key. You say, "The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that permit direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads. Whether or not they should be banned, as the American Medical Association has argued..." YES! They should be banned. If our lawmakers don't have the courage to do that they can remove the tax exemption for corporate advertising and public relations. They are creating a society of sick people with the constant barrage of gloom and doom to sell their drugs - and make unthinkable profit which has become the goal.
3
Physicians need to be knowledgable about the quantitative and qualitative benefits and costs of different options and be able to provide competent counseling to patients and families.
Adverts for rx meicines should be banned.
My condolences on your loss.
Stephen Rinsler, MD
Adverts for rx meicines should be banned.
My condolences on your loss.
Stephen Rinsler, MD
142
I agree Doctor Rinsler. Recently I've been seeing a clinical professor of Contact Dermatology at the University of Washington and he prescribed some medications that have been around for years. When I was going to have one topical prescription filled to treat head sores my cost was $185 dollars for a tiny little bottle. I took the printout to the doctor and he was shocked. My copay on other topical prescriptions by that manufacturer is $1. Pharmaceutical robbery at work.
3
"Most physicians need to be knkowledgeable," but they usually aren't. Take the case of Amgen with Procrit. The FDA has only approved it for a very limited number of patients and only them. However, Amgen and Johnson & Johnson through big financial incentives and clever sales people, managed to get doctors to prescribe this drug when blood transfusions appear to be necessary for people who have blood disorders, such as myelodysplasia. When a doctor now is questioned about the dangerous side effects of that drug, they shrug and declare Procrit is now a :"state of art" prescription. Which means, everyone else is doing it so I can get off the hook liability-wise. I was taught to think for myself and my parents reminded me not to jump off the bridge when everyone else is. Another drug, Brilinta, given to assure stents stay clear caused an incredible drop in a friend's blood count. Without the help of another physician, he might have died. The prescribing physicians simply washed his hands, declaring he did not do blood work. If they prescribe it, they should take into consideration the patient and the possible side effects.
1
As a breast cancer survivor, one with the gene defect BRCA2, my oncologist was very clear that drugs provided after chemotherapy and radiation, MAY extend life. There could be no guarantee.
Why should big Pharma be able to advertise drugs to the general public at all? Advertisements are preying on the most vulnerable and their families.
Why should big Pharma be able to advertise drugs to the general public at all? Advertisements are preying on the most vulnerable and their families.
20
Thank you for writing this piece, Matt. It is an important call for change, as well as a crucial caution to those who may be (or someday will be) going through a similarly harrowing experience that you and your family courageously endured. It is also a loving testimony to our dear friend, Ronna.
10
I don't agree with stopping DTC drug advertising. Patients will learn about promising drugs in various stages of clinical trials or off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs. TV ads push the info to the consumer who must pull the info from the internet. But word of mouth is vast among patients suffering serious diseases. And what next? Stopping patient to doctor demands for specific drugs or treatments?
The system fails when the doctor doesn't take the time to explain to the patient why drug A isn't indicated. Too often, the doctor shrugs, prescribes, and prepares to meet the demands of the next patient.
The system fails when the doctor doesn't take the time to explain to the patient why drug A isn't indicated. Too often, the doctor shrugs, prescribes, and prepares to meet the demands of the next patient.
3
I received 4 doses of Optivo over 8 weeks for skin cancer. Each treatment was billed to my insurance carrier at $20,000. It did not work. If anything, it enhanced the growth of my tumors, requiring immediate radiation in an to attempt to reduce their growth. I am angered when I see an Optivo ad on TV and switch channels every time to avoid them. Direct-to-consumer advertising should not be permitted for ineffective cancer treatments that are still in trial.
122
While Big Pharma deserves all the disapprobation we can muster, where's the angst for the doctors and hospitals who continue to flog these drugs well after proven all but useless?
10
Having lost my mother, uncle and former wife to cancer, I also extend my condolences to Mr. Jablow and his children.
However, I must ask why the fact that he does pr for an insurance company was buried at the end of this piece. Cost containment is critical for any health plan, including Evergreen which (commendably) operates as a non-profit co-op.
However, I must ask why the fact that he does pr for an insurance company was buried at the end of this piece. Cost containment is critical for any health plan, including Evergreen which (commendably) operates as a non-profit co-op.
4
The sad reality is that the blessed 1st Amendment stands in the way of so many forms of progress, such as regulating Pharma ads that increase health care spending at dramatic rate without a corresponding impact on improving morbidity and mortality.
2
The advertising is wrong even criminal but immunotherapy offers real hope and has to start somewhere. Socialism? Nah leave it to Capitalism and Complaineurism!
When good medical insurance was available I followed the development of medical advances with awe and excitement. I have a degree in Health Science and through the years kept up with research into my retirement. I was an advocate for my family and friends while they were ill and attended doctor visits with them, shadowed them during hospital stays.
Accessing medical care with insurance has become impossible. Many of the new developments are beyond the reach of most patients. The insurance companies simply will not pay. Hospitals are using tricks to make money, charging insane amounts for an aspirin or tissue. They blow up the cost of everything desperate to recoup the money spent on people who can't pay anything. Now Obama care is getting more expensive. A tax credit does not help low income people who do not need to lower their taxes!!!!!!!! m
Many can't afford Obama Care and do not qualify for aid. What a mess.
The sad prolonged profiteering of the pharmaceutical companies, marketing to the desperate and dying. Selling very expensive new drugs that don't work. And if they did? Who would get them? Repackaging the the old drugs that work and raising the price 1000 times.
I am so sorry for the loss of this lovely wife and mother. It will take more than her loss to move Big Pharma from it's goal. Profit above all.
Accessing medical care with insurance has become impossible. Many of the new developments are beyond the reach of most patients. The insurance companies simply will not pay. Hospitals are using tricks to make money, charging insane amounts for an aspirin or tissue. They blow up the cost of everything desperate to recoup the money spent on people who can't pay anything. Now Obama care is getting more expensive. A tax credit does not help low income people who do not need to lower their taxes!!!!!!!! m
Many can't afford Obama Care and do not qualify for aid. What a mess.
The sad prolonged profiteering of the pharmaceutical companies, marketing to the desperate and dying. Selling very expensive new drugs that don't work. And if they did? Who would get them? Repackaging the the old drugs that work and raising the price 1000 times.
I am so sorry for the loss of this lovely wife and mother. It will take more than her loss to move Big Pharma from it's goal. Profit above all.
4
I have never placed a comment before but feel compelled to do so now. I'll start by saying that I am nauseated by drug advertising and the profit driven practice of medicine in the US. I am a cancer patient with an unusually aggressive form of uterine cancer. I have been through six years of surgery, debilitating chemotherapy of multiple types, and was told by one of the leading cancer hospitals in the Northeast there was nothing more to be done. Based on my genetics and tumor profile a new oncologist decided to try nivolumab (Opdivo). It has given me over a year of highly functional life and continues to do so going in to my second year of treatment. Will this matter to the pharma industry? Probably not, because the market is not large enough. If a treatment works extremely well for a small number of people it will often be shelved as unprofitable. There is likely no cancer treatment that will work beautifully for everyone, there are too many variations in what cancer is. The research and trials have to focus on matching the characteristics of the patient and cancer to the treatment to determine screening processes that make a match of patient to most likely effective therapy. And the medical/pharma industry, including ocologists, have to stop selling false hope. The best they can do will often not be enough. And what are a couple of years of my life worth to society at large? Probably not much, but they have great value to me and my family.
178
No profit, no innovation.
Having watched patient's life "extended" by several pain filled, humiliating months with the use of horrendously expensive anti-cancer drugs, I can only express dismay at the current system of drug approval and utilization. Research is vital, but the venture investors' push to market these agents is prompted by return on investment, not clinically significant advances. Mr. Obama's laudable emphasis on precision medicine will be effective only if it is accompanied by research funding that promotes ethical development and use of these new agents.
2
MIRACLES Are few and far between among those with advanced, aggressive types of cancer. While there are pilot studies here and there that show some promise, what the ads do not tell you is that experimental drugs are first tested on terminally ill patients to see if the use of a novel intervention such as immunotherapy adds a short period of time to their lives in addition to what chemotherapy could provide. Who among us would not want more time with a beloved family member and/or friend who was terminally ill? All living things die. That is how nature works. What I think is barbaric is that in the US and New Zealand direct to patient drug ads are permitted by law. Clearly the motivation for big pharma are related to bottom line, not to outcomes with any realistic long-term benefits. Yes, in those cases where immunotherapy has added years, they are a boon. But for a matter of weeks or months, the quality of life is, for me, the determining factor. I've let my family know that if I cannot do the things that define me as a person, I wish to exit with dignity, rather than exhaust them emotionally and financially. In a community for the aged, most people there will tell you that they've lived to long, because they're so severely limited in what they can do for themselves. My wife's mother, aware that she was changing, said to us, I'm working with a quarter of a brain. It shouldn't happen to my worst enemies. So I think she'd say that immunotherapy can be a curse.
2
So sorry for your loss and thank you for sharing your story. Pharmaceutical advertising should be limited to over the counter medicine. If a prescpription is required, advertising is bound to mislead consumers.
3
My heart goes out to Mr. Jablow and his family, but my wife is the 1 in 5 who have responded well to Opdivo. Some context is needed here. My wife was diagnosed with stage 4 squamous cell anal cancer in April, 2013. Her PET scan lit up like a Christmas tree. Her oncologists began searching for a secondary cancer. She was put on Cisplatin, 5FU, and Neulasta, and given "weeks to months" to live. My son arranged to be married 3 months early so she could be there. Somehow, she managed through 18 rounds of poisonous chemo, living like a zombie for a week after each treatment. Following an anaphylactic reaction to Cisplatin, she was out of options. We found an Opdivo trial at MD Anderson. After 12 months, her disease is undetectable. Her quality of life is better than ever and we're catching up on things we've put off for years. Yes, the advertising is terribly misleading, but there are very real successes to celebrate. Stage 4 cancer patients will seek out therapy. So save the ad dollars in invest that money in researching other cancers and patient types for which Opdivo may be a lifesaver.
199
I'm glad your wife has recovered, but it's important to remember that it was not necessarily due to Opdivo. Spontaneous recoveries happen sometimes. The usefulness of the drug is shown by double-blind controlled studies, not by single incidents.
Mr. Jablow, thank you for this op-ed and, more importantly, please accept my condolences for your and your family’s loss. For the last three years I have been going through the cancer treatment process with a family member. Just when you think the cancer is defeated it reemerges, and the process of treatment starts anew.
I am familiar with the ad you describe and how it presents a beacon of hope for patients and their families dealing with non-small cell lung cancer. I am glad that you have described your experience, which underscores the misleading message in this ad. Personally I do not believe this particular ad is ethically necessary because the drugs used in a cancer treating regimen, selected by a team of oncologists, are often highly specific to the type of cancer. It’s good that there are not many ads for cancer drugs, as I can imagine patients would be demanding its use, as they and and their families are looking for the silver bullet.
My family member was going to participate a clinical trial but pretrial tests revealed that the cancer was gone, that the rigorous regime, which included a recently approved drug to block vascular growth to the tumor worked. We were not looking forward to participating in the clinical trial, to becoming a human Guinea pig in an experiment, which concerned a “promising” immunotherapy drug.
I am familiar with the ad you describe and how it presents a beacon of hope for patients and their families dealing with non-small cell lung cancer. I am glad that you have described your experience, which underscores the misleading message in this ad. Personally I do not believe this particular ad is ethically necessary because the drugs used in a cancer treating regimen, selected by a team of oncologists, are often highly specific to the type of cancer. It’s good that there are not many ads for cancer drugs, as I can imagine patients would be demanding its use, as they and and their families are looking for the silver bullet.
My family member was going to participate a clinical trial but pretrial tests revealed that the cancer was gone, that the rigorous regime, which included a recently approved drug to block vascular growth to the tumor worked. We were not looking forward to participating in the clinical trial, to becoming a human Guinea pig in an experiment, which concerned a “promising” immunotherapy drug.
2
In addition to the significant ethical problems of these expensive mass media advertising campaigns, it has always amazed me that all of these ads intone: "Be sure to tell your doctor if you have a history of x,y, or z. Do not take this drug if you have a,b or c." If your doctor does not know your history of x,y, or z, not to mention a,b, or c, particularly when you are confronted with a life limiting (or any other) serious diagnosis, you need to find a new doctor equipped to do a full medical workup, engage with specialists, and willing to advise and listen to patients and families in a protracted, honest and compassionate discussion of possible treatments, side effects, and what is most important to those involved: quantity of life, quality of life, activities, environment in which they want to live (and to die), and so on. My heart goes out to the Jablow family on their very sad loss, and I truly hope that they can continue to pay tribute to Ronna Jablow through lives well lived. Matt Jablow is right, and this issue points to a much more substantive one about how poorly we in the U.S. handle end of life issues, doing major disservice to both patients and families.
5
I completely agree with you about DTC advertising for oncology drugs (and others). I appreciate you writing this and calling attention to the money spent on this type of advertising and the poor taste exhibited in making the decision to utilize this DTC avenue. Please don't tell me this ad was run during the Super Bowl. Valeant Pharmaceuticals (under federal investigation for price gouging) ran an ad for toenail fungus. Unreal. I will be thinking of you, your two children and Ronna's parents in the months to come. I am so very sorry for your loss.
2
My deepest condolences to you and your family. My husband recently passed away after a three year battle with esophageal cancer, In my opinion, cancer patients are guinea pigs for oncologists and those surgeons who treat cancer patients. It's all guesswork on their part and there is no real honesty when advising the patient and his or her family about survival rates and the side effects of any and all treatments. Those patients who may be lucky enough to go into remission are called survivors and those who do not are considered victims. They are both victims of a monster that has become a huge industry while not serving the needs of cancer patients. After all these years of research no one actually knows what brings about a supposed "cure" in one patient, while another patient with all the same treatments does not survive. To tout a "moon shot" as a possible and realistic goal in ending cancer is dishonest and gives patients and their families more false hope.
89
When my father was diagnosed with esophageal cancer 28 years ago, he asked all the right questions before undergoing treatment: "How many people survive?" "How long do I have to live?" The answers were none, and 6 months. But because I was pregnant with his third grandson, we bought the false hope of a few months more.
In the end, he survived 6 months, but it was 6 months of grueling, debilitating torture. Not sure how he would have fared without treatment, but it was hard to just let him die without trying something. In the end, all he wanted was relief from his agony. He begged us to help him escape, but we couldn't do it.
Twenty-eight years later I still feel guilty that he had to suffer so much in the name of love... He died two weeks before his grandson was born.
In the end, he survived 6 months, but it was 6 months of grueling, debilitating torture. Not sure how he would have fared without treatment, but it was hard to just let him die without trying something. In the end, all he wanted was relief from his agony. He begged us to help him escape, but we couldn't do it.
Twenty-eight years later I still feel guilty that he had to suffer so much in the name of love... He died two weeks before his grandson was born.
1
Actually, each specialty has treatment guidelines which are followed. It's not "guesswork." Some cancers are highly treatable--some are not. There will never be "a cure for cancer," but there will in time be more cures for more cancers.
2
Lois, I am so so try for your loss. I am also wondering, when there are no "answers" and no surefire treatments, how scientists are to go about looking for sound treatments without trying (experimenting) with various treatments? It is absolutely true that regardless of how long one survives cancer, it does victimize those with the diagnosis. And their loved ones are victimized as well. There are types of cancers for which the moonshot HAS made the difference. Not in time for many people; right on time for others. Experimentation, variations in treatment aren't done for the fun of it, but for the hope that those scientists hold in their hearts of finding a cure.
if a doctor prescribes a drug that doesn't work or does actual harm the pharmaceutical company is the target of a lawsuit. If a doctor refuses to prescribe it then he or she is liable. That is a problem with the US medical profession. A doctor will not dare not prescribe when asked by a patient, often as a result of misleading adverting, for fear of a law suit. Simple answer: a statute absolving doctors of liability if they decline to prescribe. As it stands now, all big pharma has to do is advertise hope; the public will do the rest.
1
over time we fall in love with the world and most of what is in it and want to stay as long as we can. drug manufacturers exploit this love with the lure of more life at a high price and slim chance.
But sometime the answer to our prayers is still "no"
sincere condolences and hopes to you and your family.
But sometime the answer to our prayers is still "no"
sincere condolences and hopes to you and your family.
4
People seem to go crazy in demanding that we make direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising illegal. I am always amazed that so few people seem to know that it was in fact not permitted in this country before the 1980's. What happened to make it suddenly OK at that time? Who made the decision, and what was the stated rationale? How many other things relating to health care have changed since then? How many for the better? On a slight tangent, in the past, were we always subjected to endless slick ads about hospitals and treatment centers of various kinds?
1
Allow me to provide a somewhat alternative view here. It's the FDA's job to approve new drugs based upon clinical trial data and to ensure the Pharma companies alert patients and prescribers of the risks of those drugs. If this drug did show increased survival rates it's not the FDA's job to determine if the survival rate is significant enough to warrant approval - just that is does. And you don't want to give the FDA that kind of power anyway.
BMS statement that “Opdivo significantly increased the chance of living longer versus chemotherapy" is empirically true so the company received the approval to communicate that benefit.
We live in a Capitalistic economy and Pharma companies are for-profit institutions. As a result they have the right to market and promote their products. You can take the position that Pharma companies should not be organized as for-profit institutions but I'm not clear on how that could be done or if it should be done.
The remarkable innovation that comes from this industry is directly related and dependent on the ability of investors to make large profits for those drugs that really make a difference and really take off.
Remove the profit potential and you starve the Pharma industry of the fuel that powers this incredible industry.
I'm sorry for this writers loss but I celebrate the many lives that modern Pharma saves every year including my father and my best friends daughter. Both survived cancer.
BMS statement that “Opdivo significantly increased the chance of living longer versus chemotherapy" is empirically true so the company received the approval to communicate that benefit.
We live in a Capitalistic economy and Pharma companies are for-profit institutions. As a result they have the right to market and promote their products. You can take the position that Pharma companies should not be organized as for-profit institutions but I'm not clear on how that could be done or if it should be done.
The remarkable innovation that comes from this industry is directly related and dependent on the ability of investors to make large profits for those drugs that really make a difference and really take off.
Remove the profit potential and you starve the Pharma industry of the fuel that powers this incredible industry.
I'm sorry for this writers loss but I celebrate the many lives that modern Pharma saves every year including my father and my best friends daughter. Both survived cancer.
49
My question is: Should medicine be a for-profit concern? Certainly life-saving and pain-relieving drugs are in everyone's interest.
1
Did Opdivo significantly increased the chance of living longer versus chemotherapy? This depends on your definition of significantly. I think the answer in this situation is, "not really". When I see that type of drug ad and the disclaimers I have a hard them believing any of them. They too often seem aimed at the vulnerable and the gullible. Cancer clinic ads also seem to me to be just as reprehensible.
The ads call into question the ethics of the for profit drug industry and our reliance on the industry to develop and produce needed medications. The fact that the FDA allows such ads brings it into disrepute.
The ads call into question the ethics of the for profit drug industry and our reliance on the industry to develop and produce needed medications. The fact that the FDA allows such ads brings it into disrepute.
1
If this drug did show increased survival rates it's not the FDA's job to determine if the survival rate is significant enough to warrant approval'
That's exactly what there job is.
That's exactly what there job is.
2
Mr. Jablow: Thank you for your article pointing out the shortcomings of prescription drug advertisements. The type of advertising, used for many years by large corporations, has painted rosy pictures of the people that use the product being advertised. The Marlboro Man pointed to a viral man on horseback in remarkably good shape. The Virginia Slim advertisement, "You've come a long way baby" showing a young, slim beautiful woman lighting up a cancer stick. Yes, you've most certainly come a long way baby. Now you can watch the rate of female lung cancer rise to the same level as men. Very few cigarettes would have been sold if the advertisements had to point to the reality of the sick patient in a cancer ward coughing their head off, tubes coming out their body, due the cancer spreading throughout their lungs and bodies. Whether it's living the lifestyles of the rich and famous through the purchase of new automobile, whether or not you really need one or your current vehicle is paid off, or some other product that will dramatically alter your humdrum life, this is the goal of advertising. Play on your emotions through a distortion of reality. Are you sick? This new miracle drug will place you in a group of young, attractive people participating in a game of beach volleyball. The pharmaceutical companies, though, are truly in the doghouse with the play on emotions their advertising displays. PURE GREED!
1
The real issue here isn't Cancer-Drug Ads, its CANCER.
We're facing a Worldwide Cancer Epidemic.
We need to get serious about the War On Cancer.
We're facing a Worldwide Cancer Epidemic.
We need to get serious about the War On Cancer.
2
I would like to point out to the author that we are all going to die one way or another, some sooner, others later. Pharma companies are in the business of making those days a little easier, a little less painful and maybe a little longer. Magic elixirs only come in fairy tales. Stage IV lung cancer was a death sentence until a few years ago, the fact that there are survivors now at 5 years is itself a miracle. Also, your insurance pays for the treatment so the costs are in fact socialized. Ultimately some of the insurance money goes into research and that is where new treatments come from. Most of research turns out duds, it is the few winners that support all the duds.
1
Rahul, Pharma companies are in the business of making money, first and foremost. Helping patients has become secondary. I was a beneficiary of the first polio vaccine in the 1950's while I was in grammar school. This vaccine was provided free to everyone because it had been funded by the March of Dimes. Jonas Salk did not become a billionaire. Now, drugs cost tens of thousands of dollars per dose, or more, for minimal or no benefit, as drug company executives rake in unconscionable salaries. Something is off kilter here.
2
@Barbara, Yes Pharma executives are paid obscene salaries, but it is the same with anybody who controls a large institution whether it be a University or a Non-Profit. Salaries and perks in non-profits have even less scrutiny that corporations where they are publicly disclosed. The Polio vaccine was given free because it was a national emergency, the Ebola vaccine is never going to make money but it was still developed. The 10's of thousands you talk about are paid by insurance. If you think the drug has no benefits you are welcome to try prayer and sprinkle holy water. There are no certainities in cancer treatment, you are only trying to improve your odds.
That drug companies advertise at all is repugnant. But more repugnant is that our Congress can be so easily bought to allow advertising of drugs as well as all the rest for its various 'clients'.
304
I agree. I have long wondered how there are highly paid "pharmaceutical sales reps" (all young and fun and good looking, which is a topic for another day). Exactly how are prescribed drugs "sold" such that "sales reps" are needed?
1
It is my humble opinion that no one in the pharma business or Cancer treatment business is in a hurry to find a cure for Cancer. There is an entire industry built up strictly to fight Cancer. If a cure was found, I seriously think they would do everything in their power to stifle it. It’s really difficult in this day and age to believe that after all this time, effort, research and money spent to find a cure, that a cure has not been found. There is too much money and power behind this industry. If a Cancer cure was publicly announced, it would end their massive profit source. Can’t prove any of this, but it sure feels true.
I'm a cancer researcher, what u just said makes no sense at all. There will always be new cancers to cure because there will always be more people who get cancer. So you don't think that if a pharma finds cures for cancers they will not want to market it and own a monopoly on a disease that will always be around ? Isn't that the goal of any business? have a monopoly on a product?
There will never be a "cure" for cancer, each cancer is unique and we're moving towards personalized treatment. it will take a while before we understand how to successfully make it work for everyone, but we'll get there.
There will never be a "cure" for cancer, each cancer is unique and we're moving towards personalized treatment. it will take a while before we understand how to successfully make it work for everyone, but we'll get there.
1
During my many years in medical practice as an internist, I often listened to the presentation of the pharmaceutical representatives, pushing their drugs. Sometimes I heard outright lies, mostly though the data was massaged and filtered in such a way as to make the drug sound more effective than it actually was. Some companies were more ethical than others but never what I would call fair and unbiased. Unless you took the time to research the data on that particular drug you could be fooled and we often were.
I am also fairly certain, the "reps", (as we called them), had each physician profiled as to personality to try and manipulate us to make their presentations more effective.They also has secret agreements with the large pharmacies that would reveal our prescribing habits; something I always found intrusive and offensive.
So I along with several other comments I've read, urge the public to be very
very skeptical of the drug ads. They are not on your side. They're just trying to
push their product. We need to get rid of drug advertising to the public once and for all. If we doctors could be fooled so often, imagine what they're doing to the
public.
I am also fairly certain, the "reps", (as we called them), had each physician profiled as to personality to try and manipulate us to make their presentations more effective.They also has secret agreements with the large pharmacies that would reveal our prescribing habits; something I always found intrusive and offensive.
So I along with several other comments I've read, urge the public to be very
very skeptical of the drug ads. They are not on your side. They're just trying to
push their product. We need to get rid of drug advertising to the public once and for all. If we doctors could be fooled so often, imagine what they're doing to the
public.
3
I think a 20-40% rate of patients who show benefit -- the usual range of patients who benefit from immunotherpy -- is a worthwhile reason to aggressively investigate these drugs. But if something about a particular drug or clinical trial indicates that the positive response rate is likely to be confined to the lowest range, that information should be clearly made available to potential patients.
My understanding is that Bristol-Meyers' failed Opdivo trial occurred because the company consciously decided not to restrict patients to those with tumors high in a specific marker -- in spite of the fact that previous research had shown the drug's greatest benefits to be associated with that subset of patients.
I sympathize with Mr. Jablow's anger. Drug companies must direct a greater effort to screen deceptive or potentially-deceptive promises from their advertising. Patients seeking clinical trials must have an easy way to know whether their clinical trial is one that biases the outcome against them, while setting them up with falsely-inflated hopes.
My understanding is that Bristol-Meyers' failed Opdivo trial occurred because the company consciously decided not to restrict patients to those with tumors high in a specific marker -- in spite of the fact that previous research had shown the drug's greatest benefits to be associated with that subset of patients.
I sympathize with Mr. Jablow's anger. Drug companies must direct a greater effort to screen deceptive or potentially-deceptive promises from their advertising. Patients seeking clinical trials must have an easy way to know whether their clinical trial is one that biases the outcome against them, while setting them up with falsely-inflated hopes.
I'm sorry for your loss. It's my understanding that Opdivo's success is dependent on whether lung cancer was from smoking, since a smoker might not have a gene mutation, they have a mutated gene from smoking. Perhaps another commenter pointed out this distinction. It's my understanding Opdivo may help smokers, not non-smokers.
1
Opdivo, like the similar Merck drug Keytruda, mostly helps those subjects who have a high percentage of cancer cells that express the PDL1 protein. I don't think there is any data on smokers vs non-smokers but I could be wrong.
1
It is comforting to know that In Oregon we have assisted suicide. If I were faced with the remote possibility of living few months longer if I took a certain "new drug" but, in the process had to endure side effects and never really know if it was going to work...I would take the cocktail and end it. People die everyday. It's only the western countries where we think we can defeat nature and live longer at all costs. The marketing of these drugs plays to that desire...it exploits it. People need to make informed decisions. A neutral third party consultation service is what is needed. That person, not beholden to any drug company, can lay out the facts and strip away the marketing hype. " You have a 1% chance of living 3 months longer if you take this drug for one month which will make you more uncomfortable than you cancer...or you can go into hospice, be comfy, have your pain palliatively managed, come to grips with the fact you're going to die, talk to friends and family and go with some shred of dignity. Or you can avail yourself of other drugs and die with dignity on your own terms, at home, after a big huge party...
1
Mr Jablow: you are in public relations, so your surprise at the fact that advertising is, by its nature, misinformative and misguiding, puzzles me. I'm sorry for your loss, but maybe you could use your education and skills to educate others about the fact that pharmaceutical companies are in the business of making money - period. Caveat emptor....
If congress ever has the guts to try to ban these ads from TV, the drug companies will cry that their First Amendmenet rights of free speech being violated. This will go to the US Supreme Court and the companies will probably win. The purpose of TV ads is to create demand and revenue for a particular brand over another. Many powerful drugs with serious side effects are on TV. Just listen to the litany of serious, even fatal side effects the FDA makes the announcers say and those who already are afraid of medications get even more fearful. This is typical big money capitralism. Sanders was the only candidate who had the guts to call out big pharma for their greed. The other pols are on the take and keep quiet. All these large corporations are first of all interested in making money for their shareholders (owners) and employees and patients come after that. It's the big tobacco story in another form.
What I dislike is the displaying of people dancing and having fun while the long list of adverse side effects of the drug are being delivered. If a drug is prone to causing nausea and vomiting, show someone throwing up, or if it may cause bleeding, show someone bleeding. These potential side effects are serious and should not be glossed over.
3
Your sweet little family looks like my photo of Italy, Cortona, even. I'm sorry for your loss.
I agree with you; no prescription drugs should be advertised to the public. Doctors should receive and read diligently all new drug information. Trials should be available to anyone who qualifies medically, with all necessary disclaimers. Drugs still undergoing evaluation should certainly never be advertised to the public. We are a cruel capitalist nation.
I agree with you; no prescription drugs should be advertised to the public. Doctors should receive and read diligently all new drug information. Trials should be available to anyone who qualifies medically, with all necessary disclaimers. Drugs still undergoing evaluation should certainly never be advertised to the public. We are a cruel capitalist nation.
Prescription drugs should not be advertised to the public. Simply put, if you can't buy 'em without a scrip, only advertise them to doctors who can write that scrip. On the same tack, if you aren't registered to vote, you shouldn't be able to contribute to candidates.
1
How, you ask. It's called the first amendment. It's also called profit, and naiveté. You, of all people, ought not to be surprised, and to read the fine print..
It used to be illegal to advertise drugs. We had a first amendment then and we have it now. It is illegal to advertise cigarettes on TV but it used to be allowed. When public health is at issue, our representatives in government have occasionally stepped in to stop false or misleading advertising. The Opdiva ad really skirts false advertising since it shows happy-looking people instead of sick people with side effects. Truth in advertising says to me they should have pictures of both those who got better and those who did not. Advertising may be "free" speech but it is seldom "true" speech. This ad is skewed, meant to downplay the risks and play up the benefits of Opdiva. It subtly misleads with false hope. When life and death are the topic, shouldn't drug companies be held to a higher standard than say, cookie manufacturers?
3
As a former advertising agency creative director, I find the Opdivo ads inexcusable and beyond-the-pale disgusting. Why a drug company would choose to market a complex and unpredictable remedy for something as life-threatening as lung cancer direct to consumers seems not only stupid but full-on irresponsible. If you have a case to make, make it in peer-to-peer communications to cancer medical teams. To lay out any drug in such a brightly moronic way in 30 seconds, not to mention the utterly slick and profoundly unimaginative theater that's normally used in these insane motifs, is simply shameless. Drug advertising should be offered in the context of public service. These ads strike me as purely composed for purpose of lining someone's pockets.
9
For people my age with glasses, reading the disclaimers on the drugs advertised is nearly impossible. And just in case you could read them, the advertisers make sure the disclaimers scroll at light speed.
105
"The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that permit direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads. Whether or not they should be banned, as the American Medical Association has argued, a good first step would be to insist that advertisements promoting drugs for life-threatening conditions be entirely forthright about outcomes."
This is a very important point Matt Jablow makes. I taught at an academic medical center for 35 years, and I can't see any reason why we should let drug companies advertise to the public. I know a lot of doctors who agree and would say just ban the advertising, and forget the AMA's wimpy idea about being "forthright about the outcomes." That is unworkable.
So, to follow up. This country should do what every other country but New Zealand does with regard to advertising prescription drugs to the public. It is not allowed for many, many reasons. Imagine what these could possibly be.
So why is it we are only 1 of 2 countries that advertises prescription drugs to our citizenry? What could possibly go wrong? Ask your Congressperson then ask your doctor. Please give this very important issue some thought and maybe some action. There is lots of information on the Internet about medical ethics and the pharmaceutical industry, but be careful because some is sponsored/funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
This is a very important point Matt Jablow makes. I taught at an academic medical center for 35 years, and I can't see any reason why we should let drug companies advertise to the public. I know a lot of doctors who agree and would say just ban the advertising, and forget the AMA's wimpy idea about being "forthright about the outcomes." That is unworkable.
So, to follow up. This country should do what every other country but New Zealand does with regard to advertising prescription drugs to the public. It is not allowed for many, many reasons. Imagine what these could possibly be.
So why is it we are only 1 of 2 countries that advertises prescription drugs to our citizenry? What could possibly go wrong? Ask your Congressperson then ask your doctor. Please give this very important issue some thought and maybe some action. There is lots of information on the Internet about medical ethics and the pharmaceutical industry, but be careful because some is sponsored/funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
4
Companies like this seem to be run by marketeers and bean counters. They seem to me to charge outrageous prices, exaggerate any success at all and excessively lobby our congress
1
Thank you for your service to others by writing this article.
4
All drug commercials should be banned. They are odious, all ending in a 1000 MPH voice warning you of potential danger, all lasting longer than the commercial.
We have banned hard liquor and cigarette advertising. Let's do this.
We have banned hard liquor and cigarette advertising. Let's do this.
4
Not much to add to what is already here. Advertising for prescription drugs is clearly wrong and something that ought to be regulated out of existence. There are many complaints about 'big government', but this is one example of where government is either not big enough or too much under the control of the exploiters of the naive.
1
This week - 8/5/16 - the NYTimes reported that Opdivo failed clinical trials necessary to expand its use. BMS shares dropped dramatically.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/business/lung-cancer-drug-opdivo-fails...
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/business/lung-cancer-drug-opdivo-fails...
4
Not only are these ads deceptive, but they add to the huge cost of American medicine. Pharmaceutical companies spent 4.5 Billion dollars in direct-to-consumer ads in 2014*. That $4.5 billion eventually gets billed to the consumer in through insurance, medical bills or drug bills.
(*Neilsen)
(*Neilsen)
4
Thanks for writing this Mr. Jablow. I said nearly the same thing just the other day watching the ridiculous Opdivo commercial. It's time to stop these advertisements, they are deceptive and border on dishonest. They amount to snake oil barkers selling their useless products in the streets. At least at the turn of the century, those remedies promising to cure everything that ailed you contained morphine or cocaine and provided relief.
2
Up to 1937, marijuana, or cannabis, was an ingredient in at least 2,000 pharmaceutical drugs. It was an ingredient for a reason, which might be found in old medical journal research articles.
1
I find that claim very hard to believe because in 1937 there was only a few dozen of what we today call pharmaceuticals. You may be referring to patent medicines.
1
yes, you are right
To portray only a "best" outcome of a cancer therapy in a TV add without showing the common complications, side effects, and lack of efficacy in other cases is negligent marketing. Having worked as a clinical researcher overseeing many early and later cancer therapy trials, I was dismayed and disturbed to see unrealistic adverts that ignore the complexity and extreme variability in patient outcomes with cancer therapies. And this applies to other medical conditions, too.
Cancer treatment is complex and challenging with highly variable results and frequent side effects, some life-threatening. These aspects of treatment are rarely highlighted in TV adds. They require too much time to convey in a TV spot, and they are not always pleasant to watch. That is reality.
Cancer treatment is complex and challenging with highly variable results and frequent side effects, some life-threatening. These aspects of treatment are rarely highlighted in TV adds. They require too much time to convey in a TV spot, and they are not always pleasant to watch. That is reality.
4
I long for the days when pharmaceutical companies did not advertise prescription medications to the public. As both a consumer and health professional I have seen the danger and damage this policy has wrought, while increasing the cost and profits for these products. Pressure is placed on physicians to prescribe medications that they in all probability would not recommend or would only use in a narrow, select population. And when the companies advertise that help with the outrageous costs of their drugs is available, they frankly sound like the corner pusher whose promises the first dime bag free.
1
It is painful to learn of another family's experience and loss. It must be torture for those who are exposed to the commercials produced by pharma. Cancer-drug reality needs to include the "drug" that has proven to kill cancer cells. The California Pacific Medical Institute has demonstrated that natural cannabinoids kill aggressive cancerous brain and breast tumors by direct injection. These cannabinoids are derived from cannabis and injected directly into the tumor and cause apoptosis, the cancer cell in effect commits suicide, while leaving the other cells untouched. And it happens in a very short period of time. The Institute has been waiting for years for approval for human trials. The cancer killing properties of cannabis have been known for a long time. How many more people will have to die before the government finally allows the Institute to treat aggressive tumors with a natural substance that is known to to have the genetic key to kill cancer?
1
On another note. Television magnates profit from this also. We long ago gave up television. This ad is terrible, and television is the perfect medium for it.
5
The US was originally among the more advanced countries of the world which banned adds for pharmaceuticals, as well as legal services and medical care. Now we are subject to manipulation by drug companies (very well done and slick), lawyers (almost humorous if I didn't know that those adds were just as effective in manipulating the hopes of the poor and desperate) and medical treatment (as a former cancer patient, I find the adds for a certain cancer center particularly disturbing).
Nice try NYT, but It will be easier to limit gun sales to potential terrorist or the mentally ill than fix this. Big Pharma has deeper pockets than the NRA, and I don't see a presidential candidate willing to take on the fight.
Nice try NYT, but It will be easier to limit gun sales to potential terrorist or the mentally ill than fix this. Big Pharma has deeper pockets than the NRA, and I don't see a presidential candidate willing to take on the fight.
5
It is obvious that being able to claim that a drug or treatment is "effective" means millions, and perhaps billions of dollars in profit to drug companies. Unfortunately a study that a finds a drug to be "effective" often means, as in this article, only weeks or months of additional survival time which is often spent suffering. Drug companies are not the only culprits. Memorial Sloan Kettering in New York City uses the phrase "where you are treated first can make all the difference" which implies that being treated at MSK will make all the difference. If they had the data to prove that statement I am sure that they would publish it and change their deceptive slogan to "where you are treated first DOES make all the difference". When a health care facility or company implies a claim like that, their survival data with comparisons to other institutions should be published along with it.
6
It is horrifyingly shameful that this country allows big Pharma to advertise its products on TV. It is false advertising at its worse because the average viewer does not have the information or education from which to draw in order to make an informed choice. After seeing it on TV, patients run to their doctor asking for the "purple pill" or the antihistamine which creates joy and stability or the cancer medication which is advertised to prolong someone's life by a month or two?!! It really is such an outrage, but living in this world dominated by big business and bombarded as we are to constant streams of messages, it's litle wonder.
6
Hi. Mr. Jablow's great piece wasn't about purple pills or antihistamines. There is nothing wrong with pharmaceutical companies alerting people about drugs that improve their lives. You're right that the average viewer does not have sufficient information or education -- that's why they go to doctors.
Mr. Jablow's great piece was about a vicious form of cancer, and by extension, I imagine any truly horrific disease where an advertisement gives false hope. As Mr. Jablow points out, it is cruel.
Enough with the pile ons and indiscriminate big pharma bashing. To state what should be the obvious, these companies spend years producing therapeutics that really save lives, not just here but around the world, or even just improve quality of life (e.g., antidepressants or even Viagra). The drug that will save your life, for you it will be like it just fell off a tree one day and golly gee, it's there. It will have been produced by teams of dedicated people at one of the pharmaceutical companies that you're so casually bashing.
Mr. Jablow's great piece was about a vicious form of cancer, and by extension, I imagine any truly horrific disease where an advertisement gives false hope. As Mr. Jablow points out, it is cruel.
Enough with the pile ons and indiscriminate big pharma bashing. To state what should be the obvious, these companies spend years producing therapeutics that really save lives, not just here but around the world, or even just improve quality of life (e.g., antidepressants or even Viagra). The drug that will save your life, for you it will be like it just fell off a tree one day and golly gee, it's there. It will have been produced by teams of dedicated people at one of the pharmaceutical companies that you're so casually bashing.
1
It would be tough to outlaw direct-to-consumer marketing in our corporatocracy; but at least we should have regulation as to what they are allowed to portray in their ads instead of promising a unlikely remission of disease, which is what is portrayed in the ad that Mr. Jablow is criticizing.
My heart goes out to all families affected by cancer, as mine was too. It leaves a hole in your heart regardless of how many years have passed.
My heart goes out to all families affected by cancer, as mine was too. It leaves a hole in your heart regardless of how many years have passed.
Interesting read following the op-ed Gary Johnson to thr Rescue. I deplore the drug ads on television and in the print media, and wish they were restricted to medical journals. Yet here we have the Libertarian Party candidates who advocate eliminating regulations that safeguard the public at the expense of corporate profits. How would consumers ever be able to make wise choices if markets including big pharma were even "freer" to promote their questionable products? I thank Mr. JAblow and his family for their courage in bringing their experience to our attention. I hope doing so gives them peace.
260
The article is short on critical information. Is Opdivo approved for treatment of cancers other than lung cancer? if so, how effective has it been? That Opdivo failed as a front-line treatment may or may not be an indictment - a single trial may be meaningless and what about use in combination? That a cancer drug failed for some people in some cases doesn't mean it always fails - have there been any dramatic recoveries; even a low percentage would be note worthy? Sadly life has no gaurantees. The fight against cancer is difficult and complex. Drug advertisement should be restricted to medical professionals. That said, be careful not to trash serious research while attacking inappropriate advertisement.
My condolences for the loss of Mr. Jablow’s wife.
Several years ago I attended an FDA oncology advisory meeting (ODAC) where a drug for the treatment of advanced cancer of the pancreas was discussed. The sponsor showed that use of their drug was able to improve survival over conventional therapy by a few weeks. When a physician on the advisory board asked if a few weeks’ improvement was enough to warrant approval of the drug a lay member of the panel retorted by asking how could any member of the panel says those few weeks were not of any value. The drug was approved by the FDA.
I think that is the crux of Mr. Jablow’s argument. Most cancer therapies, like Opdivo, don’t show dramatic effects but rather incremental improvements. While I don’t disagree that the Bristol-Myers ad presents an overly optimistic portrait of their drug it is factually correct when it says it offers a “chance of living longer”. The larger question is if such modest improvements should preclude FDA approval and wide spread use of the drug for patients who are suffering from a terminal illness. Is it appropriate for companies to make the public aware of their availability through advertising even if only a minority of eligible patients will benefit. Perhaps BMS and other companies should display greater sensitivity by seeking the input and endorsement of families and patients, like Mr. Jablow’s, who received these newer drugs before airing an ad that could elicit such a painful reaction.
Several years ago I attended an FDA oncology advisory meeting (ODAC) where a drug for the treatment of advanced cancer of the pancreas was discussed. The sponsor showed that use of their drug was able to improve survival over conventional therapy by a few weeks. When a physician on the advisory board asked if a few weeks’ improvement was enough to warrant approval of the drug a lay member of the panel retorted by asking how could any member of the panel says those few weeks were not of any value. The drug was approved by the FDA.
I think that is the crux of Mr. Jablow’s argument. Most cancer therapies, like Opdivo, don’t show dramatic effects but rather incremental improvements. While I don’t disagree that the Bristol-Myers ad presents an overly optimistic portrait of their drug it is factually correct when it says it offers a “chance of living longer”. The larger question is if such modest improvements should preclude FDA approval and wide spread use of the drug for patients who are suffering from a terminal illness. Is it appropriate for companies to make the public aware of their availability through advertising even if only a minority of eligible patients will benefit. Perhaps BMS and other companies should display greater sensitivity by seeking the input and endorsement of families and patients, like Mr. Jablow’s, who received these newer drugs before airing an ad that could elicit such a painful reaction.
110
My condolences to this family. Thanks to Mr. Jablow for this article.
"A chance of living longer" is pretty vague. The ad visuals are quite lovely. Let's examine the words "chance" "living" and "longer." The chances, i.e. odds are: One in five, according to Mr. Jablow, or a 20% chance of "living longer." What is the average time of "longer?" Three months according, again, to the writer. Finally, what is that "living" like? Is quality of life improved, unchanged or is suffering increased and/or extended? If I was in Mrs. Jablow's condition, I would want to know. There are side effects from Opdivo, which the company must mention in the ad.("The most common side effects of OPDIVO ... include: feeling tired; pain in muscles, bones, and joints; decreased appetite; cough; and constipation.These problems may happen anytime during treatment or even after your treatment has ended." www.opdivo.bmscustomerconnect.com/advanced-nsclc/side-effects)
Opdivo costs about $15,000 for six vials after the downloadable coupon! (Mrs. Jablow likely got it free in the study). Who pays? Insurance or families? The people who are being targeted by these ads are very vulnerable.They have terminal cancer and they and their loved ones may be desperate, especially in the case of someone as young as Mrs. Jablow. I hope doctors explain the actual risks and possible benefits in a way that helps these people more than it hurts. We are all mortal and no drug or ad changes that.
"A chance of living longer" is pretty vague. The ad visuals are quite lovely. Let's examine the words "chance" "living" and "longer." The chances, i.e. odds are: One in five, according to Mr. Jablow, or a 20% chance of "living longer." What is the average time of "longer?" Three months according, again, to the writer. Finally, what is that "living" like? Is quality of life improved, unchanged or is suffering increased and/or extended? If I was in Mrs. Jablow's condition, I would want to know. There are side effects from Opdivo, which the company must mention in the ad.("The most common side effects of OPDIVO ... include: feeling tired; pain in muscles, bones, and joints; decreased appetite; cough; and constipation.These problems may happen anytime during treatment or even after your treatment has ended." www.opdivo.bmscustomerconnect.com/advanced-nsclc/side-effects)
Opdivo costs about $15,000 for six vials after the downloadable coupon! (Mrs. Jablow likely got it free in the study). Who pays? Insurance or families? The people who are being targeted by these ads are very vulnerable.They have terminal cancer and they and their loved ones may be desperate, especially in the case of someone as young as Mrs. Jablow. I hope doctors explain the actual risks and possible benefits in a way that helps these people more than it hurts. We are all mortal and no drug or ad changes that.
As a major BMS shareholder (actually, I'm not - but let's pretend) I have no problem with the fact that Opdivo costs $60,000 per month - and yes, you read that correctly. The fact that its efficacy is minimal is irrelevant to my bottom line. Also, as my good buddy Mitt Romney once said, "Corporations are people, my friend" and therefore, as per the infamous Citizens United ruling by our impartial Supreme Court, corporations - as people - have their First Amendment rights to say essentially whatever they want to say. (Bottom line: elections have consequences.)
Most cancer therapies may provide modest improvements but IO has shown dramatic improvements in certain indications... we're talking about years, not months for certain patients (see my blog www.behindthepill.com)
The problem is the science gets very nuanced with the introduction of biomarkers, combinations etc - companies are only just beginning to scratch the surface and within the next 2 years we will likely have new 1st line IO products for NSCLC and a host of other diseases.
The problem is the science gets very nuanced with the introduction of biomarkers, combinations etc - companies are only just beginning to scratch the surface and within the next 2 years we will likely have new 1st line IO products for NSCLC and a host of other diseases.
It amazes me the comments here of how so many people want the government to control what we see, hear and feel on a daily basis.
I find the commercials ridiculous. But I am intelligent enough to know they are ridiculous.
At the very least, I see the ad as a platform to talk to my doctor about a potential medication
Why are we always looking for government to control our lives? Monitor advertising, pay for education, pay for healthcare, regulate our way of life.
The sooner we realize we have the individual power to make our own decisions, to weed out what's right and wrong and to control our own lives the better we all will be.
I know this won't sit well with the New York Times Crowd.
I find the commercials ridiculous. But I am intelligent enough to know they are ridiculous.
At the very least, I see the ad as a platform to talk to my doctor about a potential medication
Why are we always looking for government to control our lives? Monitor advertising, pay for education, pay for healthcare, regulate our way of life.
The sooner we realize we have the individual power to make our own decisions, to weed out what's right and wrong and to control our own lives the better we all will be.
I know this won't sit well with the New York Times Crowd.
8
Sits well, but I accept most corporations have skin in this game solely for profits. There are people out there who trust advertisers, trust banks, even trust their local supermarket, not to do them harm. I agree, fools, but our fools.
The problem is that we as a society are getting dumber and dumber so most people cannot understand that what they see on TV is made up.
It doesn't sit well because it's harsh and judgmental. We don't all have the same level of education because we haven't all had the same opportunities or good fortune. I'd venture a guess that a whole lot of the viewing public, including (and perhaps especially) the elder community, aren't equipped "to weed out what's right and wrong" in order to "control [their] own lives." That's where government provides an invaluable service. It helps to level the playing field for all.
2
The given for a cancer patient with metastatic cancer is uncertainty and hope for another sunrise and sunset. Oncology and drug companies often look at weeks and months as statistically significant. A lifetime isn't measured in days, weeks or months.
I completely understand your anger having been through this door with my own wife.
My condolences for your loss and my thanks for shining some light on this blatant exploitation of people who are very sick and are forced to face their mortality head on well before their time. It's shameful.
I completely understand your anger having been through this door with my own wife.
My condolences for your loss and my thanks for shining some light on this blatant exploitation of people who are very sick and are forced to face their mortality head on well before their time. It's shameful.
13
Yes, thank you. My wife also succumbed to lung cancer and I was literally nauseated when I saw the Opdivo ads and read the small print, which stated that the average life extension was three months.
DTC (direct to consumer) pharma advertising may or may be beneficial for patients with certain diseases and conditions. Patients with cancer are probably among them.
DTC (direct to consumer) pharma advertising may or may be beneficial for patients with certain diseases and conditions. Patients with cancer are probably among them.
4
Alzheimer's patient, too.
The only statistic a corporation truly cares about is its stock price, hence the newspaper and TV commercials. It's never about patients, never will be. I feel your outrage!
24
Pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to advertise.
I am sorry for your family's loss
I am sorry for your family's loss
30
Shouldn't the FTC and television stations have a responsibility to make sure what they are advertising is truthful? While I agree that these drug companies mislead and deceive, so do the stations which charge these companies a lot of money to air their ads. That charge, in my opinion, renders them as culpable and as responsible to make sure the product they have charged to advertise to their audience is what the product's maker says it is.
The duping of Americans and the exploitation of desperate people is a conspiracy, between the drug companies and television executives, both of who are interested only in their bottom lines.
Hold them all accountable.
The duping of Americans and the exploitation of desperate people is a conspiracy, between the drug companies and television executives, both of who are interested only in their bottom lines.
Hold them all accountable.
5
What these ads should really say is "A chance for cancer patients to live 2 months longer, but only for the 1%, because the rest of you can't afford it."
27
We need to dramatically increase funding for the war on Cancer.
Its one thing to talk about a War On Cancer.
It a completely different thing to actually spend money on it.
We spent TWENTY TIMES on the war in Iraq than we have in FORTY YEARS for the war on Cancer.
If you're an American man, you've got a 1 out of 2 chance of getting Cancer and a 1 out of 2 chance of dying from it.
If you're an American man, you've got a 1 out of 3 chance of getting Cancer and a 1 out of 2 chance of dying from it.
Cancer is the #1 cause of disease based death of American Children and the #1 cause of disease based death for Americans under 85.
Every day, 1,600 Americans die from Cancer.
That's more than one every 55 Seconds.
Next time, it could be you or someone you love.
Its one thing to talk about a War On Cancer.
It a completely different thing to actually spend money on it.
We spent TWENTY TIMES on the war in Iraq than we have in FORTY YEARS for the war on Cancer.
If you're an American man, you've got a 1 out of 2 chance of getting Cancer and a 1 out of 2 chance of dying from it.
If you're an American man, you've got a 1 out of 3 chance of getting Cancer and a 1 out of 2 chance of dying from it.
Cancer is the #1 cause of disease based death of American Children and the #1 cause of disease based death for Americans under 85.
Every day, 1,600 Americans die from Cancer.
That's more than one every 55 Seconds.
Next time, it could be you or someone you love.
4
The FDA in my opinion has become little more than a criminal enterprise in association with the drug industry. It is even worse than the capitalism we have evolved to "embrace". Health care at any price for sale to those who can afford it and perhaps even understand it. Screwed uip!! Caveat emptor is not what we bargained for in health care.
6
"The FDA in my opinion has become little more than a criminal enterprise in association with the drug industry.".....Can you provide a scintilla of evidence to support your opinion, or is it just something you want to beleive without resorting to facts? It happens that the FDA is pretty darn good, and as someone who has worked with the FDA on moving a drug through clinical trials, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yet another case for the elimination of the purchase of politicians by drug companies, health care industries, and, indeed, all corporatist liars, thieves and con artists.
The overturning of Citizens United and a closely regulated, single payer national health care system (aka Medicare for all) is an absolute necessity to stop the neglect of patients and their subsequent bankruptcy by the greedy vicious owners of the health care industry.
The overturning of Citizens United and a closely regulated, single payer national health care system (aka Medicare for all) is an absolute necessity to stop the neglect of patients and their subsequent bankruptcy by the greedy vicious owners of the health care industry.
32
Condolences to you and your family Mr. Jablow. The people have been conditioned, yes CONDITIONED, into thinking that both chemotherapy and radiation are the "Golden Standard" to treat Cancer and anything else is futile. Big Pharma controls this. Right now, I'm watching from afar how one friend, and another friend's daughter are slowly consumed by these treatments with the eternal hope that it works. My wife's massage therapist, whom was built like a tank, and rode her bike all over the country, died of lung cancer after a very long and very heartbreaking battle. My daughter in law's grandfather just passed away from it. There's hope for others.
Ty Bolinger's "The Truth About Cancer - A Global Quest" is informing more and more people about all the emotional and economic manipulation they, and their doctors, have been subjected to when it comes to Cancer "treatments", and the cash cow industry it has become. Cancer has stricken down members of my family, so I speak from experience too. People now have a real opportunity to at least KNOW, and make an informed decision when they are presented with the perils of chemotherapy (pumping poison into you in the hopes it doesn't kill you) and radiation.
Ty Bolinger's "The Truth About Cancer - A Global Quest" is informing more and more people about all the emotional and economic manipulation they, and their doctors, have been subjected to when it comes to Cancer "treatments", and the cash cow industry it has become. Cancer has stricken down members of my family, so I speak from experience too. People now have a real opportunity to at least KNOW, and make an informed decision when they are presented with the perils of chemotherapy (pumping poison into you in the hopes it doesn't kill you) and radiation.
1
thanks for sharing your insight, cancer diagnosis and treatment is already a complicated process and in most cases one can only trust a team of doctors. Shame on drug companies that use advertisements to play with people's mind. If these ad are geared to those who are actually diagnosed with terminal cancer, shame on the drug industry to make a mockery of the patient and family with tv mass advertisement and preying on emotions. I always wonder who is audience for the drug industry ads?
5
Medicine and treatment for profit: A colossal mistake perpetuated by people who run companies for profit first, and mostly...
6
The scientists who do drug research have families, home mortgages, car payments, and kids who want to go to colleges. Do you really think they should have to work for free?
TV commercials are stories. Regulation aside, tv commercials for drugs are about selling us on a lifestyle theme just like tv commercials about roll-up patio awnings, family-style restaurants or package vacations to all-inclusive Caribbean resorts are about selling us a product by promoting a fantasy lifestyle. Use a particular pill and you, too, might be just like this fabulously good looking actress having a barbecue with dozens of her closest family and friends. Take this pill if you'd like to waterski! Prescription, but not over-the-counter, sleep aids always showcase models in ironed pajamas strolling through immaculate houses before sliding between ironed linens. Really? Give me that pill! These commercials are NOT about patient education - they are ONLY about driving pharmaceutical company revenue. Pharma advertising should be limited to black text on white background explaining what the drug purportedly does with clear statistics and large, slow-running type explaining side effects and risks. If companies want to pretend commercials are educational, let's teach a little pharmacology. Ditto for the over-the-top claims for cancer treatment centers and coastal California addiction recovery facilities - all overblown claims and false promises. Sadly, much of this is driven by the ACA, which has motivated a feeding frenzy by those seeking to derive maximum profit from healthcare. It's also cruel because this fake optimism patients false hope.
5
We need more information on whether cannabis can fight cancer (not just help with the symptoms, of which there is no doubt). There is considerable evidence that cannabis has anti-cancer properties. The failure to show any link between even heavy smoking of cannabis and cancer suggests that something in cannabis counteracts the damage that would otherwise be done by smoking it.
Big pharma has no interest in medicinal cannabis, there's no big bucks in using a cheap plant to fight cancer, or any other medical condition.
Big pharma has no interest in medicinal cannabis, there's no big bucks in using a cheap plant to fight cancer, or any other medical condition.
2
"Big pharma has no interest in medicinal cannabis,"......If cannabis had any activity against cancer they would have isolated the key componenet a long time ago. They would have modified that componenet a thousand different ways, optimized the activity, formulated for maximum effect, spent 400 to 800 million dollars for a clinical trial and brought it to market. There may be lots of things you don't like about the big pharmas, but when it comes to teasing out an effective new drug, their actually pretty good.
Yes, the increase in median OS is not impressive but there is a group of responders who have very long survival. We are just at the beginning of our understanding of how the checkpoint inhibitors work and there is a great deal of research underway on new targets for immunotherapy so there is hope. The advertising is obscene.
9
As a physician I abhor the marketing of drugs to the public as though it were cheese or shoes and I have refused to allow the detail personnel of the pharmaceutical industry into my office, telling them that they have a choice, either to convince me of the worthiness of their drugs or merchandise to the public, but not both. They are more content to ballyhoo the public than convince practitioners with facts and figures. Medical advertising should be outlawed as it is dishonest by nature and serves no interest but that of Big Pharma. All their claims to the contrary, about informing the public, so on and so forth, are just plain rubbish.
49
For full disclosure I am a biomedical scientist who worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb during the 1980’s. I am a passionate opponent of direct to consumer drug advertising. It’s hard enough for highly trained physicians to dispassionately weigh the risk/benefit effects of drugs. For an untrained layperson it’s hopeless, so advertisements play on hopes and fears rather than risks and rewards.
Some years back I had been troubled by jet travel induced insomnia. I went to my personal physician and asked for a prescription for zaleplon. He reacted with appropriate annoyance asking me whether I had seen a television commercial for the drug. “No,” I responded, “I knew about the drug because two of my colleagues had developed it in the 1990’s and I had just read a paper in The New England Journal of Medicine specifically recommending it for jet travel induced insomnia.” I sent him my physician The New England Journal of Medicine article and he wrote my prescription. This is the only patient initiated prescription drug process that is consistent with good evidence-based medicine.
Some years back I had been troubled by jet travel induced insomnia. I went to my personal physician and asked for a prescription for zaleplon. He reacted with appropriate annoyance asking me whether I had seen a television commercial for the drug. “No,” I responded, “I knew about the drug because two of my colleagues had developed it in the 1990’s and I had just read a paper in The New England Journal of Medicine specifically recommending it for jet travel induced insomnia.” I sent him my physician The New England Journal of Medicine article and he wrote my prescription. This is the only patient initiated prescription drug process that is consistent with good evidence-based medicine.
23
Please,a little pity for these drug company CEO's.Adding another thirty feet to their 300 foot yachts costs money.
6
The health/pharm industry spends more money lobbying DC than any other industry. The corruption in our medical system makes the Wall Street bankers look like angels. I'm thankful people like Mr. Jablow are speaking up and pointing out this outrageous practice. My thoughts and support for his family.
20
Add to that the money they spend advertising (I read once that pharmaceutical companies they spend an average of 17 percent of their budget on advertising). And yet they have the gall to cry poverty when they charge tens of thousands of dollars for potentially life-saving medications because, they claim, the research is so expensive. It's really all about profit. Just as a perfectly effective drug is about to time out of a patent, they tweak the formula enough to reset the clock, even if it makes the medication less effective. That way, they can monopolize the profits and prohibit the manufacture of generics.
The scientists who toil away in the labs are doing the work of angels; the pharmaceutical companies, however, work for the other side.
The scientists who toil away in the labs are doing the work of angels; the pharmaceutical companies, however, work for the other side.
2
I have a friend who was recently diagnosed with Stage IV stomach cancer. She is willing to do whatever she is capable of to save her life. It is heartbreaking to watch her hopes dashed again and again. She recently attended a "healing" service a friend suggested which to me seemed more carnival barker than anything else. I was disturbed and deeply uncomfortable at the blatant showmanship and obvious deception and manipulation, she was enthralled and filled with hope. After receiving a "blessing" her cancer may have advanced more. Another hope dashed. She is now entering a clinical trial in September since her chemo therapy is seemingly not working. She is beside herself with hope that this will be the miracle cure she is searching for. Her husband would move the moon and the stars to save his beloved wife. I can't begin to imagine what she and her family are going through. That drug companies prey on such desperately ill families is sadistic. That our government allows such deceitfulness is beyond my comprehension. When will the welfare of the people of the United States be put before profit? Ever???
19
By advertising during news programs, pharma (and other) companies are effectively paying for the news, ensuring non-coverage or favorable coverage of pharma (and other) issues by those programs.
3
Exactly right ! Several weeks ago the NBC evening news with Lester Holt ran a feature story the the high cost of prescription drugs. They listed several causes, but not the cost of the ads that sponsor their show and just about every other news show and cable network. To my mind the story was intellectually dishonest and it lowered my opinion of NBC news.
2
Advertising is evil. Evil because it distorts reality, enticing us to WANT that gas-guzzler and forget it contributes to killing the planet, urging the vulnerable and frightened among us, desperate as a drowning man clutching at a razor blade, to leap for the distant promise of a drug which might give a few months of life while bankrupting the recipient or the insurance pool.
Pharmaceutical advertising is the worst of all. Health is not soap. You can buy better food or a gym membership but you cannot yet buy a better genome. Ads to patients/consumers only drive up costs and pervert the doctor-patient/consumer relationship. Healthier drug company profits do not translate into healthier citizens.
Pharmaceutical advertising is the worst of all. Health is not soap. You can buy better food or a gym membership but you cannot yet buy a better genome. Ads to patients/consumers only drive up costs and pervert the doctor-patient/consumer relationship. Healthier drug company profits do not translate into healthier citizens.
7
"The overall five-year survival rate for people with Stage 4 lung cancer is between 1 and 5 percent."
I think you have your awful answer right there dear Mr. Jablow. Like the others, I am so sorry for your terrible and difficult loss.
TV ads have forever been sketchy with exquisite placement, as have many American products (think sugary cereal on Saturday mornings). Unless they are somehow clever or otherwise entertaining, I find them annoying and take them with a grain of salt. I understand people grabbing at any chance of hope but TV land is not the place to find it. I'm sorry but it's the truth.
I hope you and your family find peace. Sometimes there are no answers and no reasons why. Life is just that way. Sometimes it's beautiful, sometimes very ugly.
I think you have your awful answer right there dear Mr. Jablow. Like the others, I am so sorry for your terrible and difficult loss.
TV ads have forever been sketchy with exquisite placement, as have many American products (think sugary cereal on Saturday mornings). Unless they are somehow clever or otherwise entertaining, I find them annoying and take them with a grain of salt. I understand people grabbing at any chance of hope but TV land is not the place to find it. I'm sorry but it's the truth.
I hope you and your family find peace. Sometimes there are no answers and no reasons why. Life is just that way. Sometimes it's beautiful, sometimes very ugly.
1
It's wicked that in the US, pharma companies can advertise publicly drugs that are only available on prescription (and in this case one that apparently doesn't even work as claimed in the flaky ad, as subsequently admitted by BMS). In Europe this is forbidden. It's up to the government to ban this practice; as long as it's allowed, the pharma companies will (ab)use it.
100
We should never loose sight of the reality that Bristol-Myers Squibb is not in the business of making drugs, even less so saving lives or enhancing survivability.
Bristol-Myers Squibb is in the business of making money, made easier in the last few decades by lax TV ad regulation for prescription drugs and with their hand in the FDA's regulatory glove. If Bristol-Myers Squibb could tomorrow make more money making generic strawberry jam, by the end of the week Bristol-Myers Squibb Strawberry-flavored strawberry jam product would be on the shelves.
Bristol-Myers Squibb is in the business of making money, made easier in the last few decades by lax TV ad regulation for prescription drugs and with their hand in the FDA's regulatory glove. If Bristol-Myers Squibb could tomorrow make more money making generic strawberry jam, by the end of the week Bristol-Myers Squibb Strawberry-flavored strawberry jam product would be on the shelves.
174
And that is as it should be in a free market.
1
Agreed, if we wanted to return to a free market, left behind well over a century ago. What did it leave behind? Future generations with limited availability of anthracite coal(burned inefficiently without taking advantage of its high carbon content), the majority of USA's forests gone, urban areas developed seemingly at random, a banking system destined to collapse, a developing public transport system inefficiently based on public roadways and single-passenger(mostly), fossil-fueled, vehicles, etc. Need I go on?
2
Lots of money, both from the pharmaceutical company and the taxpayers, through grants to researchers and gov't health agencies go into developing new branded drugs. These drugs are then sold at an obscenely high profit margin by companies that claim they have to make back their (share of) the research and trials costs. The FCC primarily requires only that the new drug outperform placebos - even if drugs as good or better are available as generics or over-the-counter drugs.
Most doctors do not know much more than the pharma detail people (sales people) tell them or what's written on the package insert (which is written by the pharma company) or the prices of comparable meds. The PDR (Pharmaceutical Desk Reference) docs use is essentially a bound collection of pharma company inserts. (Pharmacists use Goodman & Gilman, but most docs don't have a copy).
In the US, the unscrupulous pharma companies sell brand names directly to the public, so when a sick person comes into her doctor's office, she is already demanding a particular drug. Doctors who try to explain there are better and cheaper meds available are swimming against the tide and may well lose the patient to another doctor who will accede to the patient's demands - go along to get along.
It is a disgrace that medications are heavily advertised to people who don't know how to evaluate them and who then put pressure on already overwhelmed physicians to prescribe THIS drug, not that. The whole system is driven by greed.
Most doctors do not know much more than the pharma detail people (sales people) tell them or what's written on the package insert (which is written by the pharma company) or the prices of comparable meds. The PDR (Pharmaceutical Desk Reference) docs use is essentially a bound collection of pharma company inserts. (Pharmacists use Goodman & Gilman, but most docs don't have a copy).
In the US, the unscrupulous pharma companies sell brand names directly to the public, so when a sick person comes into her doctor's office, she is already demanding a particular drug. Doctors who try to explain there are better and cheaper meds available are swimming against the tide and may well lose the patient to another doctor who will accede to the patient's demands - go along to get along.
It is a disgrace that medications are heavily advertised to people who don't know how to evaluate them and who then put pressure on already overwhelmed physicians to prescribe THIS drug, not that. The whole system is driven by greed.
97
Read the insert. You'll see the numbers. When I showed them to my mother and she elected hospice, died comfortably at home. The information was there; do you believe every commercial you see.?
Condolences for your loss, but there is a system in place. I asked for the box, you did not.
Condolences for your loss, but there is a system in place. I asked for the box, you did not.
7
Gee, Fredda, some of us have not gotten used to the fact that in American medicine it's "Buyer Beware" and that as a sick person, you skip the fine print at your own peril. Some of us thought we as a people were better than that.
14
What a nasty thing to say. A young woman with two young children is going to want to do everything she can to stay alive. You don't have any idea what bill of goods this woman's doctor sold her, or what went into this family's decision to try this drug.
14
True, but in this case, being a clinical trial there would not be a box as the medicine was not yet approved for that indication... Though, I agree with you, the information is there and we may elect to ask for it or not, but there are some situations where we don't need to point to someone (who is grieving, and does have a point) that they are wrong :)
5
Please, move to the Delware Valley, the 4-7 county area surrounding Philadelphia in PA and NJ. Three of the NIH Cancer centers we are lucky to have in the area all spend exceddingly large amounts of money equating decisions to come to their facility and partaking in their immunotherapy and all other adjunct treatments as life and death decisions, and you better choice their facility because the patient who is telling you went their and he is ....... well, alive! Maybe, if they spend the 10s of millions more on treatment and research, as opposed to judao-christian guilt ridden messages of hope, we could be that much closer to cracking this cancer thing!
7
I really can not understand why any of these drugs are advertised. People can not buy them nor understand about them while the vast majority of people watching have no need for them.
90
The big Pharma hope that you will demand it of your doctor.
4
Because the pharma industry is so profitable it has money to burn... efficiency of advertising doesn't even matter. There are now pharma companies that spend more on advertising than on R&D- yet they decry the cost of bringing drugs to market. Another face is the one that Danny Glover pitches- can't recall the name of the drug but it's for what has to be an extremely rare condition where a person can't control their emotional responses so laugh and cry at inappropriate times. How much money can you afford to waste to advertise something like that on national television? Is this really a disorder that is going to be an 'ah ha' moment to someone who has it? Is it even vaguely possible that a neurologist or other specialist to whom this patient might be referred wouldn't know about available drug therapies?
1
Thank you Mr. Jablow for sharing the dramatic story of your wife's struggle with lung cancer and the broader story of rampant direct-to-consumer drug advertising on television and in print media. Indeed, we are being smothered with inappropriate and misleading drug advertising which apparently is totally unregulated and unchecked for accuracy by either the FDA or the participating media. And we can expect little relief since our useless Republican-led Congress is firmly in the pockets of the drug companies. I recently wrote an impassioned article for my blog (https://ralphfriedly.com/2016/04/12/talk-to-your-doctor-about/) about this problem, including mention of Opdivo, which some readers may be interested in perusing.
47
All of the DTC ads need to be approved by the FDA before they air.
No other country in the world allows this type of advertising. Defending this kind of misleading and predatory TV ad as "freedom of speech" is cynical at best. I doubt that many prescriptions get written as a result of these placements, but the extraordinarily misleading tone and message implied by the commercial Mr. Jablow references (and just about very other one) makes for a very skewed and incorrect impression among the lay public about how effective drugs really are.
76
Well, I do can point to at least one country where these kind of ads are rampant on TV: China.
I am so sorry for your loss.
As a medical oncologist it is always difficult to treat patients with incurable cancer and I deeply appreciate that your wife chose to participate in a clinical trial.
I complained to my Opdivo rep about the TV and magazine ads and was treated as if I were unhinged.
I have written repeatedly about this whole issue of approving drugs which have little or no significant improvement in survival and carry exhorbitant price tags. But at the same time, I guarantee that if I do not discuss these drugs the doctor giving the second opinion will offer them. I try to point out the small chance of benefit but frqeuently the family only wants to hear "what are you going to do for my loved one" not the hard truth.
Drug pricing and profit making by manufacturers and healthcare providers is a disgrace. We often joke that the best way to find out about new drugs is to read the WSJ because Pharma promotes breakout drugs there.
It is the dark side of oncology practice and the reason you see fraud and abuse with overtreatment of patients who do not ask enough questions or do not seek out honest, straightforward oncologists.
Thank you for writing about this.
As a medical oncologist it is always difficult to treat patients with incurable cancer and I deeply appreciate that your wife chose to participate in a clinical trial.
I complained to my Opdivo rep about the TV and magazine ads and was treated as if I were unhinged.
I have written repeatedly about this whole issue of approving drugs which have little or no significant improvement in survival and carry exhorbitant price tags. But at the same time, I guarantee that if I do not discuss these drugs the doctor giving the second opinion will offer them. I try to point out the small chance of benefit but frqeuently the family only wants to hear "what are you going to do for my loved one" not the hard truth.
Drug pricing and profit making by manufacturers and healthcare providers is a disgrace. We often joke that the best way to find out about new drugs is to read the WSJ because Pharma promotes breakout drugs there.
It is the dark side of oncology practice and the reason you see fraud and abuse with overtreatment of patients who do not ask enough questions or do not seek out honest, straightforward oncologists.
Thank you for writing about this.
285
My belief is that a significant percentage of "detail" persons aka sales representatives who visit physicians to tout their companies' products are told what to say and how to say it. Then they drop off donuts and pens to staff and move on. Staff probably loves to see them show up around holidays. To me, they present as door to door sales types and might as well be peddling brushes.
2
All we are asking for here is honesty. Prostate cancer drugs have been guilty of this in their advertising for years. Often they tout a 50% increase in lifespan but fail to tell of the horrible side effects and expense...and that 50% increase is from 6 months without the drug to 9 months with it, all the while many patients miserable with the side effects.
41
I've been struck by the fact that the nightly news has become little more than a platform for marketing prescription drugs to people who can't even buy them directly. The doctor-patient relationship is being warped by companies who market directly to individuals, who then nag their doctors for the latest miracle drug.
Opdivo caught my attention because when my father died of lung cancer thirty years ago there was no effective treatment, and in some way I'm still looking for a breakthrough.
He was a smoker, exposed to TV ads for years that hyped the pleasures of smoking directly to consumers, and long after it was known to a virtual certainly that they were dying as a result of this addictive habit. Big money kept cigarette ads on the air, even though they were killing people.
The same big money now markets new and profitable prescription drugs, hyping claims so that people will nag their doctors for them. Potentially deadly side effects are accompanied by uplifting music and scenes of happy people frolicking in the sunlight.
This relentless advertising needs to stop. Drugs should be sold and prescribed based on their effectiveness as determined by medical professionals, and not on how alluring they can be made to appear on TV ads.
Opdivo caught my attention because when my father died of lung cancer thirty years ago there was no effective treatment, and in some way I'm still looking for a breakthrough.
He was a smoker, exposed to TV ads for years that hyped the pleasures of smoking directly to consumers, and long after it was known to a virtual certainly that they were dying as a result of this addictive habit. Big money kept cigarette ads on the air, even though they were killing people.
The same big money now markets new and profitable prescription drugs, hyping claims so that people will nag their doctors for them. Potentially deadly side effects are accompanied by uplifting music and scenes of happy people frolicking in the sunlight.
This relentless advertising needs to stop. Drugs should be sold and prescribed based on their effectiveness as determined by medical professionals, and not on how alluring they can be made to appear on TV ads.
307
It's even more sinister than you think.
It used to be that drug companied would dispatch thousands of 'detail' reps to explain the benefits of their drugs to doctors in person. Predictably, given that access to doctors was limited by vigilant secretaries/receptionists (window witches), the wheels were greased with payola in different forms. The safe harbors rules put a dent in this type of chicanery.
Realizing that the cost/benefit ratio of using sales reps to push drugs was too high, pharma introduced 'virtual detailing' arguing that doctors could watch a video detailing a drug at their convenience. This tactic didn't work that great either.
So now we have direct to consumer marketing and as you correctly point out, let the nagging begin.
In a perverse sort of way it works, and drug companies have been able to reduce their sales forces accordingly. Or what they would call 'a win-win'.
Except for patients.
It used to be that drug companied would dispatch thousands of 'detail' reps to explain the benefits of their drugs to doctors in person. Predictably, given that access to doctors was limited by vigilant secretaries/receptionists (window witches), the wheels were greased with payola in different forms. The safe harbors rules put a dent in this type of chicanery.
Realizing that the cost/benefit ratio of using sales reps to push drugs was too high, pharma introduced 'virtual detailing' arguing that doctors could watch a video detailing a drug at their convenience. This tactic didn't work that great either.
So now we have direct to consumer marketing and as you correctly point out, let the nagging begin.
In a perverse sort of way it works, and drug companies have been able to reduce their sales forces accordingly. Or what they would call 'a win-win'.
Except for patients.
19
You could get rid of your television or get your entertainment directly from Netflix and your news from the internet. I haven't seen a television commercial in years and have gone through two presidential election cycles without seeing a single campaign advertisement. Disconnecting our cable in the country where we do not have any reception has been incredibly freeing!
4
Direct to " consumer " advertising by the pharmaceutical industry has always bothered me. The standard " ask your doctor if X drug is right for you " to the background of very healthy looking people in a almost paradisiacal environment belies the reality of chronically ill people and those with imminently life threatening conditions. Its a good thing to inform consumers. Its not a good thing to mislead them. My condolences to Mr. Jablow and his family.
135
Great comment, Mr. Jablow. Condolences to you and your family.
You have highlighted an important shortcoming - apparently not ameliorated by Obamacare - of our weird, costly, bureaucratic, often inhumane healthcare system founded on corporate profit. Can someone please explain to me how any anguished "terminal" cancer patient can possibly make an intelligent choice regarding his/her treatment based on a 90 second TV ad? Is it possible that such ads give more or better information about cancer medication than even the most mediocre oncologist might give?
That the ad for Opdivo is also misleading is simply unbearable, immoral, and obscene. Shame on Bristol-Myers Squibb! Shame on the mass media!
Do Amerians ever ask themselves if it might be possible that other countries do things better than we do? Why don't other countries (with one odd exception) permit direct consumer marketing of phamaceuticals?
You have highlighted an important shortcoming - apparently not ameliorated by Obamacare - of our weird, costly, bureaucratic, often inhumane healthcare system founded on corporate profit. Can someone please explain to me how any anguished "terminal" cancer patient can possibly make an intelligent choice regarding his/her treatment based on a 90 second TV ad? Is it possible that such ads give more or better information about cancer medication than even the most mediocre oncologist might give?
That the ad for Opdivo is also misleading is simply unbearable, immoral, and obscene. Shame on Bristol-Myers Squibb! Shame on the mass media!
Do Amerians ever ask themselves if it might be possible that other countries do things better than we do? Why don't other countries (with one odd exception) permit direct consumer marketing of phamaceuticals?
168
This is not new news, but the real difference between countries is not in the TV advertising, though I dislike it a lot (my wife is a physician, and any ad with 'Ask your doctor about . . .' is a real problem.
It lies in the drug approval process. The FDA compares a proposed drug to placebo, The UK NICE compares a proposed drug to the current standard of care, and takes costs into account too. A drug is approved if it either a) is as good as current practice, but cheaper, or b) adds significantly to the life expectancy of a patient (where an extended stay in an ICU or hospice is not valued the same as healthy life) for the same cost, or c) adds quality life expectancy at a reasonable cost per extra month.
Reasonable cost is a useful calculation- the government knows the cost per life-year gained of road improvements, public health measures, better quality food . . . and it makes no sense to spend $1m per month of life gained from a new medicine when the same money could add 100 years of life by reducing road accidents.
It lies in the drug approval process. The FDA compares a proposed drug to placebo, The UK NICE compares a proposed drug to the current standard of care, and takes costs into account too. A drug is approved if it either a) is as good as current practice, but cheaper, or b) adds significantly to the life expectancy of a patient (where an extended stay in an ICU or hospice is not valued the same as healthy life) for the same cost, or c) adds quality life expectancy at a reasonable cost per extra month.
Reasonable cost is a useful calculation- the government knows the cost per life-year gained of road improvements, public health measures, better quality food . . . and it makes no sense to spend $1m per month of life gained from a new medicine when the same money could add 100 years of life by reducing road accidents.
The New England Journal article, which is linked to in support of Mr. Jablow's description of the drug's actual results, does not support his statement. He says that "in those patients who do respond, the median increase in life expectancy is only about three months compared with standard chemotherapy." Actually, the median increase of three months was for all those given the drug, both the responders and the non-responders. This would mean that, among the subgroup who responded, the increase due to the medication would be expected to be more than three months, likely quite a lot more (since the three month number represents that improvement after it is "diluted" by including a large group of nonresponders).
The kind of result found here is not unusual in studies of chemotherapy drugs. It represents an incremental improvement over other available therapies. Much of the progress that has been made over the years in treating various cancers has come from the accumulation of many such incremental steps.
Of course, the ad, by its tone and uplifting music, gives an impression of rosy, healthy, long life that is going to be different from the actual experience for most patients. But the factual claims made seem to be accurate. The drug advertised does in fact appear, based on the article Mr. Jablow cites, to be a worthwhile, potentially life-extending treatment for patients in the same awful situation as Mr. Jablow's wife.
The kind of result found here is not unusual in studies of chemotherapy drugs. It represents an incremental improvement over other available therapies. Much of the progress that has been made over the years in treating various cancers has come from the accumulation of many such incremental steps.
Of course, the ad, by its tone and uplifting music, gives an impression of rosy, healthy, long life that is going to be different from the actual experience for most patients. But the factual claims made seem to be accurate. The drug advertised does in fact appear, based on the article Mr. Jablow cites, to be a worthwhile, potentially life-extending treatment for patients in the same awful situation as Mr. Jablow's wife.
30
Your inference (i.e. "likely quite a lot more") depends on the size of the groups, non-responders vs. responders, and the spears of results over the two groups. I have not read the NEJM piece, but it is both possible that there are not many responders and that even if there were, the difference in increased longevity between responders and non-responders is minimal. Is three months worth it? Perhaps to some, but the point, as you seem to admit, is that the ads are deceptive in their "emotional tone."
Here is the problem: An extra three (or however many) years sounds swell until you realize that the quality of that extra time is often very poor. It's three more months of actively dying and, although not always grossly unpleasant, often those extra months are simply an extension of misery.
7
@Stephen Gordon,
Your comment suggests that the available suggests that "respoonders" might have a high rate of long-term survival (5 yr). I don't think there is clear evidence for this assertion.
Bear in mind that the proportion of responders is important. If only one in a 100 patients are responders (1%) then they might (arimetically) have a median survival of 5 years, but that would be a 1% for the treated patients as a whole.
If half the patients are responders, their median survival would stiill be a few months more than nonresponders.
Your comment suggests that the available suggests that "respoonders" might have a high rate of long-term survival (5 yr). I don't think there is clear evidence for this assertion.
Bear in mind that the proportion of responders is important. If only one in a 100 patients are responders (1%) then they might (arimetically) have a median survival of 5 years, but that would be a 1% for the treated patients as a whole.
If half the patients are responders, their median survival would stiill be a few months more than nonresponders.
1
I'm sorry for your loss, Mr. Jablow, but - surely - as a public relations director you are aware of the power of Big Pharma's lobbyists and the FDA's passivity in the face of that lobby. Not to mention the networks and cable companies who rake in millions for placing and running these sunny tv commercials.
62
Wow! The loss of a treasured wife and mother is heartbreaking.
Of course, Bristol-Myers Squibb or any other drug company, should not be allowed to advertise directly to patients. It is terrible public health policy.
As this story documents, lack of integrity is one important reason to ban these ruthless companies.
Of course, Bristol-Myers Squibb or any other drug company, should not be allowed to advertise directly to patients. It is terrible public health policy.
As this story documents, lack of integrity is one important reason to ban these ruthless companies.
79
The first time I saw the ad you describe, I immediately sent a text to a family member to be on the alert for it. Because of a recent experience with cancer in our family (involving an aggressive and inoperable brain tumor)-, and the use of this drug, I was particularly interested in the information provided in this ad. The message in my text was that I thought the "information" was very misleading, and gave one a sense of false hope. Thank you for bringing this to light by sharing your experience.
46
Excellent piece. The cancer was a terrible event, but the tragedy for all of us is the shamelessness with which drug companies patent and extract huge profits for drugs whose efficacy is little better than prayers.
Sadly, the shamelessness of drugs (and for profit medicine overall) extended across all diseases.
Sadly, the shamelessness of drugs (and for profit medicine overall) extended across all diseases.
64
The advertising of new drugs goes on because Big Pharma is
a creature of Wall Street. This Opdivo study was not
open to general public use. Wall Street loves drugs like Opdivo because
it is priced at about $150,000/year.
a creature of Wall Street. This Opdivo study was not
open to general public use. Wall Street loves drugs like Opdivo because
it is priced at about $150,000/year.
108
And a chunk of the profit from sale of the drug is being used to make those glossy ads... I would much rather see drug companies put their profits to use in R&D instead ADs.
4
What do you mean that the "...Opdivo study was not open to general public use"? Any patient who met the eligibility criteria for the study could be/would be enrolled. That's why they are called studies or trials as they are prior to regulatory authority approval for wide usage.
I whole heartedly agree with you. I work in radiation oncology and see patients on these trial drugs everyday. All of them are desperate, like your wife, for a chance.
I know that bringing these new drugs to market is very expensive for the drug companies. I wonder why our government cannot take a more active role in research and development and manufacturing of new and old drugs. It is probably not well known to the public but there are older, known to work drugs that can be rationed when not available. Short answer, they don't make money for the drug companies anymore. Remember the brouhaha when generic drugs to treat some diseases suddenly cost 5000% more because some guy who needed money bought the drug company? Common drugs like leucovorin are experiencing shortages.
My husband and I joke about the drug TV ads constantly on. We laugh and say "I can't wait until I get diabetes so I can try that drug! It looks so fun!" But I know it is no laughing matter. So sorry for the loss of your wife. We lost both of my husband's parents to cancer, it is devastating.
I know that bringing these new drugs to market is very expensive for the drug companies. I wonder why our government cannot take a more active role in research and development and manufacturing of new and old drugs. It is probably not well known to the public but there are older, known to work drugs that can be rationed when not available. Short answer, they don't make money for the drug companies anymore. Remember the brouhaha when generic drugs to treat some diseases suddenly cost 5000% more because some guy who needed money bought the drug company? Common drugs like leucovorin are experiencing shortages.
My husband and I joke about the drug TV ads constantly on. We laugh and say "I can't wait until I get diabetes so I can try that drug! It looks so fun!" But I know it is no laughing matter. So sorry for the loss of your wife. We lost both of my husband's parents to cancer, it is devastating.
124
"I wonder why our government cannot take a more active role in research and development and manufacturing of new and old drugs."
No need to wonder. Look at the GOP-led Congress which refuses to provide adequate funding for NIH and every other government agency. Their mantra is to shrink government to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub - and then drown it. In their view, anything that is not "inherently governmental" should be done by the private sector, and in their view, pretty much nothing is inherently governmental. Except maybe defense. Nope, that's also out-sourced. Blackwater got your tax dollars while the military starved for adequate equipment.
Everyone is focused on the presidential race. Need to get these jerks out of the Capitol. Take back the Senate AND the House.
No need to wonder. Look at the GOP-led Congress which refuses to provide adequate funding for NIH and every other government agency. Their mantra is to shrink government to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub - and then drown it. In their view, anything that is not "inherently governmental" should be done by the private sector, and in their view, pretty much nothing is inherently governmental. Except maybe defense. Nope, that's also out-sourced. Blackwater got your tax dollars while the military starved for adequate equipment.
Everyone is focused on the presidential race. Need to get these jerks out of the Capitol. Take back the Senate AND the House.
298
Wasting Time- "No need to wonder. Look at the GOP-led Congress which refuses to provide adequate funding for NIH and every other government agency...Take back the Senate AND the House."
I couldn't agree more. Look at how the GOP politicized funding for Zika research. "Democrats opposed the bill, which they complained was negotiated between Senate and House Republicans with little input from them and was loaded with "poison pill" riders that cut health programs, restricted funding for birth control services from Planned Parenthood, weakened clean water laws and blocked a ban on displaying the Confederate flag at U.S. military cemeteries." USA Today. "The $1.1 billion in new funding would be partially offset by $750 million in spending cuts. They would include $543 million from the Affordable Care Act’s transition fund for US territories, $100 million from administrative funds for the US Department of Health and Human Services, and $107 million from the remaining Ebola emergency funding." -STAT News.
They claim to be the pro-life party but they care nothing for us, they care nothing for pregnant women and they couldn't care less about the precious fetus pregnant women are carrying and even less after that child is born, thus the constant attacks on any social services that benefit the poor. They care only about power, money and scoring yet more political points against President Obama. They are despicable and should be removed from public "service" as soon as possible.
I couldn't agree more. Look at how the GOP politicized funding for Zika research. "Democrats opposed the bill, which they complained was negotiated between Senate and House Republicans with little input from them and was loaded with "poison pill" riders that cut health programs, restricted funding for birth control services from Planned Parenthood, weakened clean water laws and blocked a ban on displaying the Confederate flag at U.S. military cemeteries." USA Today. "The $1.1 billion in new funding would be partially offset by $750 million in spending cuts. They would include $543 million from the Affordable Care Act’s transition fund for US territories, $100 million from administrative funds for the US Department of Health and Human Services, and $107 million from the remaining Ebola emergency funding." -STAT News.
They claim to be the pro-life party but they care nothing for us, they care nothing for pregnant women and they couldn't care less about the precious fetus pregnant women are carrying and even less after that child is born, thus the constant attacks on any social services that benefit the poor. They care only about power, money and scoring yet more political points against President Obama. They are despicable and should be removed from public "service" as soon as possible.
25
The reason the government can't take a more active role in research and development of drugs, as you suggest, is that the Republican dominated Congress would never permit such a violation of the private sector.
There is too much money to be made hood winking the American public, especially those desperately seeking to prolong their lives.
Much of this money then finds its way into the pockets of Senators and Representatives. Why would they ever accept a change to this system.
As another commenter suggests big pharma's job is to make money first and foremost.
There is too much money to be made hood winking the American public, especially those desperately seeking to prolong their lives.
Much of this money then finds its way into the pockets of Senators and Representatives. Why would they ever accept a change to this system.
As another commenter suggests big pharma's job is to make money first and foremost.
9
Having worked in pulmonary medicine for many years I witnessed patients with lung cancer wrestle with a disease that was often treated with surgical removal of part or all of a lung. Lung resection was typically not offered to late stage non small cell carcinoma. So a regimen of chemotherapy that could forestall the rapid growth of this type of cancer would be welcome indeed. Opdivo is not it.
I have watched in amazement at the ad for Opdivo, which received an inordinate amount of air time. I am fairly confident based on my experiences that people receiving late stage chemotherapy are not sitting in the stands at Little League games.
I also noticed, since I have become accustomed to look for it, the small print at the end of the ad that states that 50% of patients receiving Opdivo lived 3 months longer than patients receiving standard chemotherapy. Again, my opinion is these 'lucky' people were not playing with their grandchildren.
It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a drug to market. I fear Bristol- Myer Squibb was trying to recoup some of that investment before the drug failed clinically and commercially.
I agree with Mr. Jablow; this is exploitation at its worst. The FDA needs to do a better job of protecting patients from this type of con, not just protecting the finances of pharmaceutical companies.
I have watched in amazement at the ad for Opdivo, which received an inordinate amount of air time. I am fairly confident based on my experiences that people receiving late stage chemotherapy are not sitting in the stands at Little League games.
I also noticed, since I have become accustomed to look for it, the small print at the end of the ad that states that 50% of patients receiving Opdivo lived 3 months longer than patients receiving standard chemotherapy. Again, my opinion is these 'lucky' people were not playing with their grandchildren.
It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a drug to market. I fear Bristol- Myer Squibb was trying to recoup some of that investment before the drug failed clinically and commercially.
I agree with Mr. Jablow; this is exploitation at its worst. The FDA needs to do a better job of protecting patients from this type of con, not just protecting the finances of pharmaceutical companies.
405
and they recoup that money deiving all of our healthcare costs higher and higher!
2
and the drug companies recoup their investment while driving healthcare costs higher and higher.
1
The "small print at the end of the commercial" is pretty much not even readable on the average home TV set.
1
For us then the answer was simple: no treatment.
Americans are so afraid of and uncomfortable with the whole subject of death that they are delusional in their hopes for these medications. Of course the drug companies should be prevented from direct to consumer advertising for these products. But the bigger issue is the ignorance of the basic reality that death is a part of everyone's life, and a few weeks or a month one way or the other is often cruel and unusual punishment to the patient and families involved