False Advertising

So what’s wrong with spending $258 million on advertising – if it brings in $12.7 billion in sales?  Sounds like a good investment right? 

Ok, ok, so what if after two years of this advertising campaign you pull the ads because they are frequently criticized for being inaccurate and misleading.  Check out today’s article in the New York Times but what I want to know is where is the FDA in all of this? I mean if we're thinking about giving up our right to take drug companies to court and relinquish all health and safety oversight to the FDA (thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court) shouldn’t they care that millions of advertising dollars gives an accurate portrayal of a drug?

Sadly, the answer is no.  Almost a decade ago the FDA relaxed its rules on drug advertising so there is less accountability for pharmaceutical companies in honest and accurate promotion of their drugs.

Comments

[Mike Butler]

That a body double was used for Dr. Jarvik in that part of the commercial showing him rowing (the real Dr. Jarvik doesn't row), I find especially rich.

On Feb. 25th I posted an article on my blog:
http://www.attorneybutler.net/2008/02/truth-in-advert.html

with clips of cigarette ads from the 50s showing how companies have used advertising to mislead the public.

Now that Jarvik won't be advertising Lipitor, I think the Flintstones are available (they can't tout Winstons any more.)