boring, areyouready.

Are you ready for Iran?  Volunteering I hope.

SOCIALISM! I am getting scared of Edwards, I am a Democrat, but I am not going to support a socialist in sheep's clothing.

Drug advertisements are a public health concern. They drive patients to newer, more expensive medications regardless of efficacy.  Ads also ignore generic medications that might be very useful.  Finally, they might lead patients to believe they have condition that they might not have.  These ads aren't public service announcements, they're made to sell specific products-- that have serious effects on health.  Edwards is addressing a real issue here.

I'm glad that someone finally has the guts to stand up the drug companies and their lobbyists - and someone who isn't in bed with them.

Apart from the two year wait, I support the FDA approval for drug advertising. That's all I have to say on the issue.

there should be no advertising for drugs period. it makes absolutely no sense.

I just find it amusing that the diarist thinks people would rush to the polls to vote against the guy who wants to ban drug advertising.  Because, you know, nothing is more central to the American way of life than watching ads for Restless Leg Syndrome.

What's the purpose in writing a diary about something like this if you have absolutely nothing intelligent to say about it?

As drugmakers scramble to grab Vioxx's multi-billion-dollar share of the arthritis and pain-relief market, patients might find themselves wondering whether the competing medications are much safer.

The fact that no one can answer that question conclusively, and the fact that Vioxx remained on the market as long as it did, point to serious deficiencies in how the Food and Drug Administration regulates prescription drugs, critics say.

Merck yanked Vioxx on Sept. 30 because a new study had found a higher rate of heart attacks and strokes in patients taking the drug than in those on a placebo. The move was a stunning denouement for a blockbuster drug that had been marketed in more than 80 countries with worldwide sales totaling $2.5 billion in 2003. Vioxx, hawked by the likes of Olympic gold medalists Dorothy Hamill and Bruce Jenner, had been sold in the USA for more than five years.

. . .

Critics describe the rise and fall of Vioxx as a cautionary tale of masterful public relations, aggressive marketing and ineffective regulation. "The FDA didn't do anything," says Eric Topol, chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. "They were passive here."

Yeah, Edwards is way off target because the drug companies care so much more about people than profits.

Nice to see the diarist is an apologist for unbridled capitalism at the expense of people.

I think the only redeeming quality the drug ads have is that they may cause viewers to notice legitimate symptoms and go to the doctor when they otherwise wouldn't.

I don't approve of drug marketing as it is.  I haven't a clue why you would object to this.  You're from England, right?  It's my impression that they don't allow this sort of advertsing over there any way.

I actually like this from Edwards.  I think it's a good idea.  He's proposing a lot lately- on Drudge there was a headline today about him "college for everyone"- and I did think, oh- that headline going to scare Republicans who might hate the idea of something being socialist even worse than they hate Hillary.  I'm personally not against things like that even if it were heading toward that and I'm not saying it is- I just wish I could respect Edwards more as a person- I just can't separate that.