I thought this might be a pretty good post to have by itself because it would carry different comments compared to the other thread, but the reason that so many drug ads are on US television compared to anything else is because the US and New Zealand are the only countries that don't outright ban direct-to-consumer drug advertisements. This ban was lifted under Bill Clinton's FDA in 1997 under the caveat that the ads list all the side effects, but of course they didn't realize how much they'd advertise.
Advertising directly to doctors was never banned, which is how Purdue Pharma, run by the Sackler family, members of the Triple Parentheses Gang, were able to outright lie to doctors about how OxyContin was non-addictive, resulting in its over-prescription and the current opioid epidemic.
https://jheor.org/post/2674-with-tv-drug-ads-what-you-see-is-not-necessarily-what-you-get
It's a strange concept to sell the idea of a prescription drug to consumers when we can't buy it, and the insurance company can deny payment. Besides I didn't go to school for a decade to make those kind of decisions
Every doctor I’ve ever known will prescribe whatever I asked for (provided I do my research and lie/invent symptoms for him)
They just want an easy life and ubiquitous commercials on TV tell us many people behave the same way.
Talk about something that is fairly terrifying. What do they call that sort of thing "the banality of evil"
Yeah my experience is that as long as it's not a controlled substance doctors don't really give a shit. Even if it is a controlled substance it's not a problem if you find the right doctor. I could become a dealer and get more pussy than I ever have in my life...
Shit, you've got "celebrity dentists" out here keeping people high with full tanks of NO2 delivered to their homes.
Unless its ivermectin for covid
Because that doctor might risk whatever kickbacks from the pharma company if they found out the doctor sold something that did not have a massive profit margin, which ivermectin does not have like something still covered by exclusive patent rights.
I had no idea such toothpaste existed
Erm, I can order it from Amazon Canada.
Mexicans are far more free - they just sell everything at the pharmacy
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Sensodyne-Repair-and-Protect-Sensitive-Toothpaste-Extra-Fresh-3-4-Oz/23814511
Reading the ingredients, the only difference in formulation is that this is .454% flouride and the clinpro is 1.1% flouride, and the clinpro has a proprietary tri-calcium phosphate ongredient that's supposed to help with penetration of the enamel to remineralize past the surface layer, which you'd only need if your teeth were absurdly leeched already.
Its almost exactly the same thing.
What are you talking about? It doesn't do that.
https://www.solventum.com/en-us/home/f/b00005767/
This is the manufacturer's website and product spec. This is just a high-concentration flouride toothpaste that has some proprietary ingredients to help remineralize enamel. It's also higher acid and lower grit, so it doesn't work exactly normal toothpaste and isn't formulated for regular daily use. And it absolutely doesn't regrow enamel. Nothing does, yet; that's a big research focus in dentistry right now, for obvious fucking reasons.
No shit your dentist said "you don't need that". You don't sound like you're at high risk for developing lesions, and can stay with the standard formulation. This is why specialty drugs require a prescription; there's no such thing as a cure-all panacea that can be taken by anyone at any time in any concentration that cures whatever ailment you want.
Don't spread bullshit.
In Canada, drug advertisements either can name the brand name of the drug but not the disease it treats. Or can name the disease but not the name of the drug.
But there's still millions & millions spent on drug ads despite these restrictions. For some drugs like Viagra, Tylenol or Advil, drug ads still make sense simply for brand loyalty & market share on legacy drugs that don't need explanations. Similar to how Coke can make ads not about soda.
But the drug ads also push brand new drugs without any mention of disease or indication. These must rely on word-of-mouth, that people will hear about the brand name from friends, anecdotes or MSM and have curiosity & FOMO get them to ask their doc for it directly.
The opposite of the brand-name-only ad approach is the fake PSA where the pharmaceutical companies don't name their drug but try to create new customers for benign diseases & moral panic. There was a campaign not that long ago trying to shame men into treating toenail fungus, implying that it wasn't simply a cosmetic discoloration but in fact a moral failing & a sinister infectious disease that could be spread to others. The campaign featured schoolmarm female doctor hectoring in lab coats talking down to men. The campaign hidden as a PSA seemed to be engineered by whatever company pushes Jublia, a nail lacquer that costs between 600-1000 bucks for the treatment course.
"Talk to your doctor about Prolapsic today!"
Drug ads in Canada
Some drugs are surprisingly affordable out of pocket and drug companies often have programs for people who can't afford their meds. Insurance can refuse to pay but they can't stop you from filling a prescription by other means.
Make sure that you don't tell the pharmacist what your insurance is before attempting to buy it because once they know you have insurance, they are legally bound to charge you the insurance-dictated prices.
And insurance-dictated prices are frequently higher than out-of-pocket.
This isn’t entirely true, they’re also trying to force insurance immediately tied to name and id because of this. We’ve regulated healthcare into a corrupt, unsustainable money pit and their only answer at Washington is forcing people dumb enough to buy working class insurance to pony up the dough.
I mean the pharmacy is happy to take your money. Just tell them not to run it through insurance if you think/know denial will be an issue. Your second sentence is completely correct.
True, but most are expensive