E-DRUG: Non-industry promotional claims
-------------------------------------------------------
[Please can readers share their regulatory mechanisms or ideas to address the issues raised by Graham Dukes. Moderator]
Contributors to e-drug have frequently - and rightly - questioned the
content of much advertising by the pharmaceutical industry. I do feel
that we should now be taking a look at some of the claims being made -on
the internet and elsewhere - from other sources. Particularly prominent
are claims to treat obesity, hair loss, and diabetes..
The usual story is that there is a remedy that doctors don't want patients
to know about, since they fear loss of business. The "remedies" appear to
be sold through the mail. So far as I can see this sort of quackery is
currently not prevented by national drug advertising controls-
Graham Dukes
Oslo
Graham Dukes <mngdukes@gmail.com>
E-DRUG: Non-Industry promotional claims (2)
-------------------------------------------------------
I think Graham is right about these impressions. We all will run into these claims regularly, that make the skin itch. We often see these unlicensed, unknown remedies being sold by Internet based companies that also sell prescription drugs (often without prescription).
With the increasing use of the Internet, and their search engines, the genuine medical information is snowed under.
But there has been some research in this area, not much. Before investigating the claims, and their yes-or-no justification, I suggest to undertake a thorough literature review, and not only in pharmaceutical and medical databases, and also uncover the commercial strategy behind it.
Foppe
Van Mil Consultancy - Dr. J.W.Foppe van Mil, Pharm D, PhD, FESCP
Margrietlaan 1, 9471CT Zuidlaren, Nederland
51 Grand Rue, 67220 Maisonsgoutte, France
Foppe van Mil <jwfvmil@vanmilconsultancy.nl>
E-DRUG: Non-Industry promotional claims (3)
----------------------------------------------------------
Graham Dukes said: 'So far as I can see this sort of quackery is currently not prevented by national drug advertising controls' while Foppe van Mil was interested in the commercial strategies behind it.
Ironically, in Australia at least, some pharmaceutical companies who have traditionally produced evidence-based prescription drugs have now bought up smaller "complementary" medicine companies but they certainly have not improved their promotion!
Clearly the motive for all who promote therapeutic products with claims that lack evidence is to make money.
In Australia, companies producing "complementary" medicines get a much better return by investing in celebrity product endorsement and marketing hype rather than genuine research.
See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12ww26sQF7E&feature=youtube
produced by the activist group 'The Checkout'.
These matters were the subject of a Sydney University Health-Law seminar held earlier this year.
This seminar was held back-to-back with World Consumer Rights Day 2016 (March 15) and the National Consumer Congress (March 16). The latter was hosted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The 2016 Congress discussed how to better protect and empower consumers in the lead up to the review of the Australian Consumer Law.
Our seminar’s aim was to outline current concerns that consumer (and health professional) organisations have with the advertising of therapeutic goods and services and to explore ways in which the system(s) might be improved.
The material produced may be of interest,
see:
http://www.medreach.com.au/?p=1517
Dr Ken Harvey
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine
Monash University
Australia
Email: kenneth.harvey@monash.edu
"Ken Harvey" <k.harvey@medreach.com.au>