ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/24/2018 04:53 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.296 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/22/2007 10:23 PM ID: 59694 Permalink   

Pfizer Sued: Viagra is No Party

 

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against Pfizer, Inc. over ads previously criticized (SN reported) as promoting their impotence drug Viagra as a party drug. The nonprofit says the ads have furthered spreading of STDs.

Studies found use of the drug illegally in "cocktails" with crystal meth, in which Viagra counters impotence caused by the stimulant. The suit aims to stop the running of ads with pictures of younger men and taglines like, "Be this Sunday's MVP."

Pfizer, which received $860 million in 2005 Viagra sales, notes that age should not be confused with degree of impotence. The AIDS foundation wants further FDA oversight of Viagra and an information campaign by Pfizer against illegal use of the drug.

 
  Source: www.cnn.com  
    WebReporter: MomentOfClarity Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  10 Comments
  
  SN-reported complaint:  
   
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/22/2007 11:31 PM     
  lol how ELSE would they advertize VIAGRA?  
 
n/t
 
  by: midgica   01/23/2007 02:15 AM     
  yeah  
 
I'm with you, midgica. Instead of trying to sell their drug to people with genuine sexual dysfunction, they should market their ads for tweakers - we all know there's no better combination than methamphetamine and an unstoppable erection. Kudos, Pfizer!
 
  by: Volkova_Nova     01/23/2007 02:39 AM     
  Lfmao  
 
I saw American Pie: Naked mile with the effects of Viagra..

lfmao.. I was wondering if any male from the ages of 18-30 took it would it blow your wiener off? Being that at a sexual prime age it would be as the Emperor would say "Fully operational".

 
  by: Mr-Anderson   01/23/2007 04:43 AM     
  Want them to pay, not sure they deserve it.  
 
I think these drug ads are a huge problem, regardless of the drug. The way they peddle these things to uninformed patients is disgusting. Much as I loathe the practice, though, I think that to say that Pfizer has been advocating this illegal use is gross exaggeration (at least, based on the examples given here). After all, what they are advertising IS what people want out of the drug. Sex is recreational for most people, after all.
 
  by: momentofclarity     01/23/2007 05:49 AM     
  Lets get a pocket full of money that we didn't ear  
 
This sounds like that same crowd that want's their daughters to get cervical cancer. Everything causes increased sexual activity. If only someone would teach these people that all to important trick of holding your hand over you right eye so they only go half blind. They might be able to see that humans are violent sexual creatures. Just tune in to 30 minutes of prime time TV. When are they going to file suit against Desperate House wives or Victoria Secret for that damn sexy catalog that comes unsolicited every year. When they do I want a piece of that action, but for now I just settle for my catalog and poorer vision in my left eye.
 
  by: BornInKy   01/23/2007 07:07 AM     
  that sould read Earn  
 
Earn
 
  by: BornInKy   01/23/2007 07:08 AM     
  @Born  
 
"This sounds like that same crowd that want's their daughters to get cervical cancer."

That sounds akin to likening Planned Parenthood to Focus on the Family. You did read that this is an AIDS awareness foundation, right? This is not rallying against sexual education and contraceptives, but rather the promotion of risky sex by a big money ad campaign. Like I said, I'm not sure that they're right, but I think you're missing the point.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/23/2007 09:25 PM     
  Interpretation and Personal Responsibility  
 
"The nonprofit says the ads have furthered spreading of STDs."

My parents, teachers, doctors and everyone else who talked about the subject always made it clear that using a condom is virtually mandatory. Condoms are given away for free in many places, and can be purchased from any drugstore, supermarket or over the internet.

If someone makes a choice to have sex without proper protection, then they deserve the results. They are aware of the risk, and choose to ignore or justify it. No Viagra commercial ever made me want to have unprotected sex. No episode of 24 ever made me want to beat up muslims. No episode of Jackass made me want to dive into a latrine.

What happened to personal responsibility? If personaly responsibility is being discounted, then what about the responsibility of parents, in the case of youthful offenders?

Education and involvement of the parents are THE two key factors in people making stupid decisions later in life.

Commercials have no bearing on our ability to do stupid things, except - possibly - when the individual has developmental issues.

Somehow I doubt that everyone involved in this claim/study/whatever suffers from problems severe enough to make them sufficiently susceptible to commercial advertising.
 
  by: winterblade   01/24/2007 05:24 PM     
  I read the source  
 
I just think it's BS. People that have std's ordinaly wouldn't have unsafe sex if it wasn't for the viagra. How did they get the std in the first place? Blood transfusion right? I just don't buy it and it irritates me to see a frivious lawsuit even if it's against a drug company. I have never seen viagra advocated for use in people that didn't need it. All drugs have some abuse potential and drug users will take and experment with anyhing. Where in the add does it say "if your illegal drug abuse has been keeping you down, get a rise with viarga." When are they filing a lawsuit against the makers sudafed? It's done far more "dammage" but I guess since thay didn't advertise the same premise doesn't apply. Wich further's my point that someone figured it out on their own without the drug company's help. If nothing else this lawsuit will spread the idea to mix it with meth to stay functional. Got to love the media for taking a good idea and spreading it to the masses. Pehaps thay should file suit aganit themselves for filing a lawsuit and bringing it into the limelight.
 
  by: BornInKy   01/25/2007 04:58 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com