How pharmaceutical companies find sick users on Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: How pharmaceutical companies find sick users on Facebook

#131

Post by SargeZT » Fri, May 07, 2021, 2:39 PM UTC

meowster wrote: post #118

SargeZT wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can categorically say that is untrue. While not a fan of direct pharmaceutical marketing, the FDA has strict rules about what needs to be in an advertisement. Chiefly, it must address: * At least one approved use for the drug (the actual medical condition that it has been tested for) * The generic name * Nearly every side effect the drug can give you. There are some side-rules on that one.

How can you categorically say that is untrue while not providing any evidence to the contrary, but in fact confirm the other person's observations? Essentially: they said commercials have A and B, you said that's untrue because comercials have to have A, B, and C.

The OP said 'generic symptoms.' There are no prescription drugs for 'generic symptoms', they must have a specific approved use and they must be mentioned verbally in the commercial. Here is the evidence to the contrary:

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/prescription-drug-advertising/pres...

Re: How pharmaceutical companies find sick users on Facebook

#132

Post by vanc_cefepime » Fri, May 07, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

varispeed wrote: post #26

GuB-42 wrote: post #13

Is there some proof that big pharma really targets sick people? The article mentions targeting for things like "cancer awareness" as a proxy for cancer patients. But why target patients? Patients usually don't decide on the drugs they take, doctors do, they should be the target, not patients. So maybe we can take things at face value, big pharma is not targeting cancer patients, instead they are targeting those who a…

The patient can say to the doctor "I feel that X drug may be better for me than Y". Sure, ultimately it's the doctor decision, but if patient puts enough pressure and the doctor thinks that there is no material difference between X and Y except e.g. price, they may side with the patient for the sake of their peace of mind. You know the placebo factor etc.

This is true, but not as frequent in my rural town in my experience.

Most have terrible insurance plans or no insurance at all and I have to use whatever is cheapest on Walmart/Publix/Winn-Dixie standard formulary.

Other towns or specialists may have different experiences.

Source: me, small town MD.

Re: How pharmaceutical companies find sick users on Facebook

#133

Post by bserge » Fri, May 07, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

durnygbur wrote: post #21

> How Big Pharma Finds Sick Users on Facebook Living in a country where advertisements of pharmaceuticals are allowed, it's unbearable. Basically Facebook in real life - in TV, on billboards, in newspappers, YouTube ads, omnipresent leaflets. All flavours of dietary suplements, Rutin and Ibuprofen products, cures for fungal and intimate infections, wonder cures for liver and joints, "digestion catalysers". They're th…

How is that different than any other ads? I'm more sick of car, credit/loans and insurance ads than pharma. I ignore all of them, anyway.

Re: How pharmaceutical companies find sick users on Facebook

#134

Post by bserge » Fri, May 07, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

thomasedwards wrote: post #3

dools wrote: post #2

The article seems to suggest this is a bad thing, but my first reaction is "fantastic". Pharmaceutical companies create life saving medicines and then use advanced social media targeting to locate the people that need them. The only bad thing about it is if those people targeted can't afford the medication, which is why healthcare needs to be a universal right. People love to bitch about Big Pharma but I have a magic…

Or, I go to a doctor, who is a medically trained professional, and they prescribe a medicine to me based on their experience and training, without any incentive for financial reward?

You need to go to a doctor anyway. Not all of them are good, and imo they shouldn't have absolute say in what you take. If you suggest some medication you saw an advertisement for, they should take it into consideration instead of telling you to stfu about it. Yes, my experience with doctors has been terrible.

Re: How pharmaceutical companies find sick users on Facebook

#135

Post by durnygbur » Fri, May 07, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

bserge wrote: post #133

durnygbur wrote: post #21

> How Big Pharma Finds Sick Users on Facebook Living in a country where advertisements of pharmaceuticals are allowed, it's unbearable. Basically Facebook in real life - in TV, on billboards, in newspappers, YouTube ads, omnipresent leaflets. All flavours of dietary suplements, Rutin and Ibuprofen products, cures for fungal and intimate infections, wonder cures for liver and joints, "digestion catalysers". They're th…

How is that different than any other ads? I'm more sick of car, credit/loans and insurance ads than pharma. I ignore all of them, anyway.

One example is actors looking like doctors advising painkillers as an anwser to back pain or headaches. Together with unavailable public and expensive private healthcare that's quite toxic mixture.

Re: How pharmaceutical companies find sick users on Facebook

#136

Post by waterhouse » Fri, May 07, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

johannes1234321 wrote: post #10

jaspax wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that doctors don't have financial incentives to treat patients?

They should have an incentive to treat them, they shouldn't have an incentive to suggest specific medication.

For what it's worth, it seems doctors are heavily advertised to: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/22/the-apa-meeting-a-phot...

Re: How pharmaceutical companies find sick users on Facebook

#137

Post by jaywalk » Fri, May 07, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

rich_sasha wrote: post #48

CapriciousCptl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, it's legal to advertise drugs directly to patients. There's not a lot of places in the world where it happens, I'm assuming Scandinavia is one of them.

One particularly funny side effect is that the narrator needs to read out a comprehensive disclaimer. I was once on holiday and with US TV, and saw a few times an ad for performance enhancement for older gentlemen. The ad showed an older couple, who first are not very happy, then much happier with each other, frollicking in the long grass and disappearing off shot etc. While that was happening, the narrator was readi…

It can be even funnier because they only need to read the side effects if they say what the drug is supposed to treat. Because of that, you get the drug ads that never list side effects, but you're left wondering what the drug actually does after seeing a bunch of people running through fields and hearing a bunch of vague things about a better life.

Re: How pharmaceutical companies find sick users on Facebook

#138

Post by Broken_Hippo » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:24 PM UTC

moksly wrote: post #49

CapriciousCptl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, it's legal to advertise drugs directly to patients. There's not a lot of places in the world where it happens, I'm assuming Scandinavia is one of them.

Maybe it’s because of how we buy prescription medicine. You’ll get the prescription from your doctor, and then go to a pharmacy where they will default to offering you the cheapest brand available at the time of your purchase, and ask if you’re cool with that. So we sort of have a culture where you only really stick to certain brands if you’ve ever had a bad reaction to a copy product. I’ve got a hay fever for instan…

Honestly, the differences between filling something in the states and Norway isn't that big - get a thing from the doctor, go to the pharmacy, and get the cheapest option (with a few exceptions). The pharmacies usually ask me if the generic is OK (some people care, after all).

The bigger difference I see here is that in the US, I generally got loose pills in a pill box, and here in Norway, I'm more likely to get a standardized amount of pills in blister packs or manufacturer packaging.

Quite simply, prescription drugs advertise in the US because they are both allowed to do it and the name-brand drugs get more people insisting on the name brand because they advertise, even though it costs the person more (sometimes, a lot more).

Re: How pharmaceutical companies find sick users on Facebook

#139

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:31 PM UTC

fighterpilot wrote: post #82

Ensorceled wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can entirely blame unethical, predatory behaviour on the government that enables it.

It's not a government that enables it, it's a government that enforces it through laws that guarantee and endow a local monopoly. Whenever you have an endowed monopoly without substitutes, you have extremely high prices. It's econ 101 and will happen 100% of the time (that's why I call it enforcement instead of enablement). If the government just got out of the way, the price of insulin would plummet .

So you think it's an accident that pharma corps make lots more money under the regime enforced by government? Or, possibly the pharma corps have engineered this situation politically (ie 'buying' politicians in some way - campaign donations, advisory jobs, etc).

Why else would gov arrange things this way of not at the direct [but covert] behest of the pharma corps? Do you think they're doing it (having overinflated prices for age-old life-saving medicines) to help citizens?

Re: How pharmaceutical companies find sick users on Facebook

#140

Post by anjel » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:32 PM UTC

gerdesj wrote: post #43

moksly wrote: post #7

“If you’re a drug manufacturer looking for patients”. Maybe I’m just too Scandinavian to understand, but wouldn’t it be the other way around? Now I also wonder if I should see a doctor. I’ve been getting a lot of “is your will in order” commercials from law firms on Facebook recently. I sure hope big tech advertising doesn’t know something I don’t.

Replace the word patient with customer or "money".

I work in a (California) medical facility. "Patient" is now a deprecated if not archaic term, no longer used. Patients are now properly referred to as "clients" for at least 5 years now.