If someone asked a random person on the street about sildenafil, esomeprazole, atorvastatin, or ranitidine, the person would probably have no idea what those chemicals were. However, ask the same thing about Viagra, Nexium, Lipitor or Zantec and the person will know at least one of these drugs. In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration allowed the marketing of drugs directly to consumers through media such as television, making the United States one of the few countries to openly allow it. Drug advertising has a direct impact on the health of those who purchase the drug. Pharmaceutical giants continue to shell out millions of dollars for direct-to-consumer advertising every year. Advertising often leads directly to a large increase in sales which negates advertising, research and development costs. Pharmaceutical companies ultimately victimize and deceive consumers through rampant deceptive advertising, distorted statistics, and advantageous manipulation of vague FDA regulations using shady business practices. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay False advertising by pharmaceutical companies deceives consumers by selectively omitting vital information and using opinions over facts. The main problem today with pharmaceutical products is the enormous amount of advertising done by companies. In 2003 alone, a total of $3.2 billion was spent on advertising in the United States alone. Between the dawn of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising in 1997 and 2003, the pharmaceutical industry earned the title of the tenth largest advertiser in the United States (Lansing, Paul, and Fricke). Of course, the amount of money spent on drug advertising certainly has its benefits for companies. A report by congressional investigators has shown that there is a direct correlation between drug advertising to consumers and the increase in requests and use of said prescription drugs. In fact, each year at least 8.5 million Americans receive prescriptions for heavily advertised medications (Gottlieb). There is nothing inherently wrong with advertising, however false or dishonest advertising crosses the line. The risk of misleading consumers due to unreleased side effects would be reduced if the FDA reviewed advertisements before they appear on television. Unfortunately, this process would cost companies a large amount of money and would also lengthen the drug development and approval process which currently takes up to 12 years (FDA approvals). The compromise between the drug companies and the FDA was that the FDA would not review the advertisements until they were aired (Plackett). Pharmaceutical companies would also be responsible for conducting tests on the proposed drug. Of course, this has its drawbacks. While this promotes some healthy capitalism, it also inevitably leads to an unhealthy dose of unethical business practices. Ultimately it is up to viewers to report any inconsistencies to the FDA, unless FDA auditors spot misleading claims beforehand. Between 1997 and 2002, the FDA issued 88 subpoenas ordering the removal of commercials from several pharmaceutical companies (Gottlieb). A common trend appears to be that advertisements for over-the-counter (OTC) drugs are more dishonest than those for prescription drugs. . When Claritin, an allergy medicine, went from being a prescription drug to an over-the-counter drug, commercials made "six times more benefits claimsof the drug" (Plackett). Given the ease of purchasing over-the-counter drugs, pharmaceutical companies rely more on brand awareness and the positive aspects of the advertised drugs. This extensive false advertising is obviously not limited to just a few specific brands. In a study conducted by researchers for the Journal of General Internal Medicine, 168 commercials from a two-year period between 2008 and 2010 were selected. 84 were for well-known prescription drugs and 84 were well-known over-the-counter drugs. All of these commercials they aired on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN; all the major news networks. Researchers found that only 33% of the claims in the advertisements were completely true (Perry). broader, the problem of the use of distorted statistics. Pharmaceutical companies continually use distorted statistics to produce a false image of their product and create false expectations in the minds of consumers. Brand loyalty is one of the main ways companies market products to consumers. It's no different for pharmaceutical companies. In addition to using easy-to-remember slogans like “Levitra works for me, maybe it can work for you” or “your daily pain reliever (Advil),” companies often use untrue statistics in both TV and printed materials (Perry). These statistics often pass as legitimate to the viewer since the ad is displayed for many seconds on television or at a glance on a newspaper page, but many times the pretty graphics and other visual aspects of the ad are often there to make the viewer feel more positive about the drug psychologically. Graphs and tables are often used to provide the viewer with clear, easy-to-remember summaries of the study's findings. These often lead the consumer to misleading conclusions (Lexchin). These images allow for the possibility of misleading doctors into recommending certain medications to patients. Sometimes, the images provided in pharmaceutical company advertisements are completely nonsensical or unfounded. In a study conducted at UCLA, doctors analyzed the quality of 484 advertisements, 63 of which had a total of 74 graphics. The results showed that 64% of these charts did not contain sufficient information related to the drug, 47% had no keys or legends, 36% were numerically distorted so that consumers overestimated the effectiveness of the drug, and 31% did not provide sample size (Cooper). This problem doesn't just persist in consumer advertising. Advertisements published in medical journals often suffer from the same ailment. In another study conducted by internal medicine physicians, results indicated that out of 27 advertisements in 10 major American medical journals, 8 advertisements contained statistics from inconclusive or poorly designed studies (Wilkes, Doblin, and Shapiro). Obviously this also ends up influencing the doctors' judgment. The industry no longer needs to rely on lobbyists. According to Dr. Alan Steinberg, director of research for NOP World Health, “Physicians are very likely to accommodate patient requests for advertised brands” (Lansing, Paul, and Fricke). Advertisements created by pharmaceutical companies end up manipulating consumers by providing them with false information about the effects of the drug being sold. The industry not only does this through statistical information, but also subconsciously implies the positive life changes that result from the use of the advertised drug. For example, in 2004 the FDA forced Pfizer to withdraw advertising for Viagra. The ads claimedfalsely that Viagra could restore the user's sexual desire (Lansing, Paul and Fricke). The advertisement also included themes such as happiness, a good American lifestyle, and other things that appeal to male tastes. However, the amount of advertising done for Viagra is clearly profitable for Pfizer. With $111.6 million spent on advertising, the drug earned the company (Lansing, Paul and Fricke) $1.88 billion. The pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca was also forced to remove an advertisement for Crestor that falsely claimed that the FDA had “confidence in the safety and effectiveness” of the drug (Payne). There isn't much for a pharmaceutical company to lose if sales continue to generate significant revenue that negates any fines or removals imposed by the FDA. Unfortunately, poor regulation before advertisements air only makes it easier for pharmaceutical companies to continue down this path.Loose government regulations on the pharmaceutical industry cause pharmaceutical companies to take advantage of loopholes and use underhanded tactics to releasing potentially dangerous and overpriced drugs to consumers. Thanks to the agreement with the FDA, pharmaceutical companies now have complete control over the process from drug development to clinical trials to data publication (Moncrieff). Although some drug companies submit their findings to the FDA for review before airing advertising, a large number continue to withhold information unless they are forced to turn it over due to a post-release issue. During the 1960s, most clinical trials of pharmaceuticals were government-funded and conducted by public institutions. However, clinical trials these days go through contract research organizations. As the name suggests, CROs contract their services to pharmaceutical companies. These organizations along with academic research centers actively compete to do research for the giants of the pharmaceutical industry (Bodenheimer). The problem with research conducted by CROs is obvious. Although they claim to be heavily regulated, CROs and other centers that rent research services must compete for favorable results to secure future business. This inevitably tips the balance in favor of the pharmaceutical industry. This isn't the only shady tactic employed by pharmaceutical giants. Previously, incomplete or irrelevant statistics were found to be a problem with graphs and claims made in advertisements. Although pharmaceutical clinical trials have been shown to be “four times more likely to have a positive result than independently conducted studies,” and the methods used were better, the industry-funded studies actually removed negative data to make the results appear their best studies (Goldacre). This is a big problem. The average consumer has no idea whether the results shown in ads are real or not without thorough research. Usually, the average consumer has no way to get the source of the results in the first place. In addition to not publishing negative test results, pharmaceutical companies end up selectively presenting favorable study results and publishing them multiple times under different names to increase the illusion of legitimacy (Moncrieff). A final tactic used by the industry is to pay doctors under the table to prescribe or approve their drugs. In an investigation conducted by numerous journalists from institutions such as NPR, PBS and Consumer Reports, it was found that pharmaceutical companies have paid millions of dollars to corrupt doctors, many of them with &.