The walls of the Overton box are closing in. Speaking of times changing, the New York Times ran a companion story yesterday, headlined, “Should Drug Companies Be Advertising to Consumers?” I probably don’t need to tell you this again, but as usual, when the headline asks a question, it never answers.
image 11.png
In 1997, the FDA loosened previous restrictions and allowed prescription drug ads on television, so long as they included a fast-talking summary of major risks and gave a source for further information. Now, you can’t watch an hour of broadcast TV without watching a dozen ads featuring happy, attractive people playing beach badminton in yachtwear while afflicted with diseases that would curl your hair. “Now I’m enjoying life! And not worrying about my genital herpes! Thanks, Frudongza!”
Direct-to-consumer drug ads are allowed by only one other country in the world, a tiny island nation that explicitly compares its own citizens to fruit (New Zealand’s kiwis). Just. Saying.
The problem for the Times is that, for once, the paper’s go-to progressive darlings agree with President Trump’s position. Last June, archaic Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) co-sponsored a bill to outlaw drug ads. President Trump roped-a-dope, and in September, signed an executive memo calling for the same thing (in Trump’s version, a return to pre-1997 FDA advertising rules).
So … now what? Oppose banning drug ads? Right after Bernie just came out against them? Just because Trump is for it? It was a perplexing conundrum. The Times solved it by fairly reporting on how everyone in politics and the industry oppose direct drug ads, but bookended the article with Tara’s emotional tale: a 270-pound retiree who found relief after she heard an Ozempic jingle. Ooooo-zempick!
“If I hadn’t asked my new doctor about it, would she have suggested Ozempic?” Ms. Abrams querulously wondered. “Or would I still weigh 270 pounds?” Good thing for that commercial. The Times didn’t mention how it found Tara; I’m betting it was with a little behind-the-scenes help from an advertiser (I’m looking at you, Novo Nordisk.)
The walls of the Overton box are closing in. Speaking of times changing, the New York Times ran a companion story yesterday, headlined, “Should Drug Companies Be Advertising to Consumers?” I probably don’t need to tell you this again, but as usual, when the headline asks a question, it never answers.
image 11.png
In 1997, the FDA loosened previous restrictions and allowed prescription drug ads on television, so long as they included a fast-talking summary of major risks and gave a source for further information. Now, you can’t watch an hour of broadcast TV without watching a dozen ads featuring happy, attractive people playing beach badminton in yachtwear while afflicted with diseases that would curl your hair. “Now I’m enjoying life! And not worrying about my genital herpes! Thanks, Frudongza!”
Direct-to-consumer drug ads are allowed by only one other country in the world, a tiny island nation that explicitly compares its own citizens to fruit (New Zealand’s kiwis). Just. Saying.
The problem for the Times is that, for once, the paper’s go-to progressive darlings agree with President Trump’s position. Last June, archaic Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) co-sponsored a bill to outlaw drug ads. President Trump roped-a-dope, and in September, signed an executive memo calling for the same thing (in Trump’s version, a return to pre-1997 FDA advertising rules).
So … now what? Oppose banning drug ads? Right after Bernie just came out against them? Just because Trump is for it? It was a perplexing conundrum. The Times solved it by fairly reporting on how everyone in politics and the industry oppose direct drug ads, but bookended the article with Tara’s emotional tale: a 270-pound retiree who found relief after she heard an Ozempic jingle. Ooooo-zempick!
“If I hadn’t asked my new doctor about it, would she have suggested Ozempic?” Ms. Abrams querulously wondered. “Or would I still weigh 270 pounds?” Good thing for that commercial. The Times didn’t mention how it found Tara; I’m betting it was with a little behind-the-scenes help from an advertiser (I’m looking at you, Novo Nordisk.)