there are commercials about drugs that clearly described all of the adverse reactions that could occur if taken even when prescribed by a doctor? I was watching television with my husband and I just can't grasp the concept of these types of commercials. This is basically the small, fine print being voiced on national television. I would rather my doctor explained the side effects in the exam room or the doctor's office. It's really scary.
Have never understood why this continues on TV. .. We watch these happy people, doing fun stuff, and in the background hearing gloom and doom effects of what they are advertising. None of it makes any sense.
I know, the voice in the background reciting all the dangerous effects and "even death" in a lighthearted tone of voice, it's just so bizarre.
For myself, I have always trusted doctors I've gone to. It's more of a "hope" thing, or security. Like the all-knowing doctors. I think they do know a lot, it's just they are also afraid of being sued. Some I've noticed just are basically asking me what I want. I had to do something about my depression at one time, and I felt a doctor/pill was the best fix. I went a few times, to different doctors, and they all allowed me to try different meds. I remember one telling me the "typical" or most reported side-effects from her patients. When they tell about the side-effects on commercials, I believe it is to help cover their butts, the pharmaceutical companies I mean. But it is like an oxymoron, they are warning you, but the commercial itself "promises" wonderful results.
Here is an answer..... Unlike for herbs and supplements, Congress has given the FDA authority to regulate prescription drug ads. The FDA has divided the ads into three different categories, each with different rules. The divisions are: Health seeking advertisements These ads can’t mention specific drug names, only diseases or symptoms. Something like, “If you sneeze, cough and your eyes water, you may have allergies,” or, “If your legs wiggle all night you may have restless legs syndrome. See a doctor for diagnosis and treatment.” Obviously, the advertiser thinks it has the answer to your problems but can’t say so. However, they can mention the manufacturer’s name and give you a number to call. The FDA doesn’t consider these “prescription drug ads” and generously passes their regulation on to the Federal Trade Commission. Reminder AdvertisementsThese may give the name of the drug but not what it is used for. They can’t even use hints or photos. An example would be an ad for, say, Claritin. The assumption is you know what it’s used for, but they can’t mention allergies or even show someone sneezing or a bunch of flowers. In return, the advertiser doesn’t have to list all those side effects and risks. Product Claim AdvertisementsHere’s where the FDA gets picky. If the ad mentions both the brand name and what it’s used for, they must name all those side effects listed in the drug’s prescribing information (an extensive report the FDA requires for each prescription drug). So it doesn’t matter if 10 percent or 0.01 percent of people taking antidepressant X report hearing “It’s a Small World” when they go to the bathroom, it has to be reported at the end of the ad. One alternative is the advertisers can choose to list just a sampling of side effects and provide several sources of where to get the extensive list.
Quotes about the FDA .. some really funny stuff in there. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/fda “The FDA and the EPA are supposed to be protecting us, not the people who make the poison.” ― Kenneth Eade, An Involuntary Spy “In 2004, the FDA urged drug companies to adopt a 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy with respect to their clinical-trial data showing that antidepressants are not better than placebos for depressed children. If the data were made public, they cautioned, it might lead doctors to not prescribe antidepressants. The FDA believed that the jury was still out on antidepressants for children. Even if the clinical trials show negative results, an FDA spokesperson was reported to have said to a Washington Post reporter, it doesn't mean that the drugs are ineffective. The assumption seems to have been that doctors should prescribe medications that have not been shown to work, until it has been proven that they don't work.” ― Irving Kirsch, The Emperor's New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth “Food safety oversight is largely, but not exclusively, divided between two agencies, the FDA and the USDA. The USDA mostly oversees meat and poultry; the FDA mostly handles everything else, including pet food and animal feed. Although this division of responsibility means that the FDA is responsible for 80% of the food supply, it only gets 20% of the federal budget for this purpose. In contrast, the USDA gets 80% of the budget for 20% of the foods. This uneven distribution is the result of a little history and a lot of politics.” ― Marion Nestle, Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine