Peggy Fleming Op-Ed letter in Ny Daily News

[karina1974]

It doesn't address skating, but it was still a surprise to see her name in there this morning.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/31209p-29601c.html

Scroll all the way to the bottom of the page.

[AxelAnnie22]

It is sad she felt she had to defend herself.

Peggy is not being compensated for taking time away from her family, etc. Peggy is taking time away, etc., because she is being compensated! It is not like she used to go out and give interviews about lipitor, because she felt her presence made a difference for the drug company, and Pfizer heard about it, and decided to compensate here. Good grief!

This whole thing of paid spokespeople is new, and being sorted out. Everybody will get used to it.

For me, personally, (and it always is about me LOL!), I never care that a famous person tells me to use something. I think it is dumb. Do I think Peggy is an expert on cholesterol? NO. OTOH, if Peggy was recommending something within her area of expertise (and that would be skating) I would be interested. I always laugh when some famous person is talking, like an expert, about some random thing.

[olivia]

ITA, AxelAnnie22. I see Dorothy Hamil's "endorsement" of Vioxx as having a greater impact due to its relevance to physical issues resulting from her years of figure skating and training. I could say to myself, "Hey, if it works for Dorothy after all those years of pounding and abuse, it might work for me too!" I don't get the connection with Peggy and cholesterol, but, whatever :lol:

O-

[duane]

Originally posted by AxelAnnie22
Peggy is not being compensated for taking time away from her family, etc. Peggy is taking time away, etc., because she is being compensated! It is not like she used to go out and give interviews about lipitor, because she felt her presence made a difference for the drug company, and Pfizer heard about it, and decided to compensate here. Good grief!

LOL! --but very true!

[peachstatesk8er]

Originally posted by olivia
ITA, AxelAnnie22. I see Dorothy Hamil's "endorsement" of Vioxx as having a greater impact due to its relevance to physical issues resulting from her years of figure skating and training. I could say to myself, "Hey, if it works for Dorothy after all those years of pounding and abuse, it might work for me too!" I don't get the connection with Peggy and cholesterol, but, whatever :lol:

O-

She says the drug works for her, so I guess she has/had high cholesterol. If she had experience with the condition and found something that worked for her, then I don't see a problem with her representing the drug in ad campaigns.

[karina1974]

Originally posted by olivia
I don't get the connection with Peggy and cholesterol, but, whatever :lol:

O-

Why, because she's in great shape? You don't have to be overweight in order to have high cholesterol, it's all in what foods you choose to eat or not eat. I guess you also don't understand how a certain 28-year-old pairs skater could die of a heart attack. Everyone knows heart attacks are just for old people.

[tollerfan]

There is also a genetic connection to high cholesterol (which my brother-in-law has, and his father had) that has little to do with the food he eats (although he does watch what he eats, but is on medication and that is what now keeps his cholesterol down). He has always been thin.

[flippet]

Originally posted by tollerfan
There is also a genetic connection to high cholesterol

This is very true. My health teacher in high school has a family history of high cholesterol, and she's one of the absolute healthiest people I know--vegetarian, constantly exercising, etc. But, she lives her life that way because she knows that if she doesn't, her cholesterol will rocket off the charts.

I can easily believe that perhaps Peggy has/had a problem with cholesterol--but frankly, that's between her and her doctor, and perhaps a bit with Pfizer, since they're paying her to promote the drug. It does go over better when the person promoting something has actually used it...but I guess I'm not as skeptical as the person who wrote that letter in the first place. Benefit of the doubt, folks.

[Halo girl]

I don't really like the idea of celebrities being spokespeople for drug companies because they only promote one specific drug. One drug doesn't work for all people, yet that's kind of the idea that the celebrities give.

I haven't seen Peggy talk about whatever drug she's promoting, so let me use another example. Delta Burke, who played Suzanne on Designing Women, is also a drug spokesperson for a certain drug for depression. I think it's great that she's out there promoting people to seek help for their problems, yet I've seen her on tv telling people to ask about the specific drug that she endorses. There are so many categories of depression drugs that it may take several rounds of medicine to find the one that is right for you. However, she implies that if you take her drug, it will make you feel better too. Depressed people can sometimes get frustrated by one pill not working, so in a way I think it does more harm for Delta to imply that you pop a pill in your mouth and then get better. Just kind of misleading to me because the one she talks about may not work for someone else.

How much research celebrities actually learn about the different drugs, I do not know. However, but essentially, they are being leaders on certain health problems because that's what the audience is going to hear first. However, I think they give the wrong impression of "this is the drug that will work for you too." Speaking up about illness is one thing, taking money to talk about a specifc drug is another. It wouldn't bother me as much if they said "I take drug x, but there are many drugs out there that may work better for you".

Just my opinions anyway.....

[peachstatesk8er]

I haven't seen the one that Peggy is endorsing, but I have noticed that usually at the end of a lot of those kinds of commercials there a little voiceover saying "Talk to your doctor about whether **insert drug name here** might be right for you." As long as they have something like that tacked onto the end, I don't see any harm done. Not every pill works for every person and to get most of the stuff advertised, they'd have to talk to their doctor anyway.

[LilRedRidingHood]

I agree, Peach.

No Doctor I know is going to prescribe a drug just because a patient says they want it. A medical history and patient evaluation are factors in determining what drugs, if any, are administered.

If any of you are familiar with the cost of malpractice insurance, you'll also know a Doctor is very cautious with everything they do these days.

I think these ads are a way to open up communication with physicians.

[olivia]

Originally posted by karina1974
Why, because she's in great shape? You don't have to be overweight in order to have high cholesterol, it's all in what foods you choose to eat or not eat. I guess you also don't understand how a certain 28-year-old pairs skater could die of a heart attack. Everyone knows heart attacks are just for old people.

Sergei Grinkov had a rare congenital heart defect. Sorry, but I don't see the logic in your analogy.

Lots of people, celebrities, athletes are in good shape and have high cholesterol. I still don't see the Peggy Fleming/cholesterol connection. But, Peggy is high profile and likeable, so I suppose she's as good as anyone to endorse a cholesterol-reducing drug.

O-

[flippet]

Originally posted by olivia

Lots of people, celebrities, athletes are in good shape and have high cholesterol. I still don't see the Peggy Fleming/cholesterol connection.


So, in your opinion, Peggy can't possibly fall into the category in your first sentence? What do you need to see, her medical records??

:roll:

[Doug]

"No Doctor I know is going to prescribe a drug just because a patient says they want it. A medical history and patient evaluation are factors in determining what drugs, if any, are administered. "

I would have to disagree. I live with a doctor, and pharmaceutical companies are not stupid. In fact, they are probably the most capitalist and entrepreneurial companies in America. (Stand back McDonald's). They know when they get drug names in people heads, that it does 2 things. First, it actually increases demand for the product by subscribing to a certain hypocondria that lives in the general population. Second, it puts a solution to their problem within their reach (or so they think) if they just go and ask for it.

Many doctors, all though of course not all, after time, become more inclined to give the patient what they want. After all, for them, it reduces hassle, and furthermore, speeds up the process which in the end makes them more money for less work.

Sad, perhaps, but true.

Now I'm not saying that a doctor will perscribe a drug just because someone asks for it. But I am saying that this form of advertising translates into very clear and very real financial benefit for the pharmaceutical company.

Pharmaceutical companies spend exhorbatant amounts of money on doctors already, for everything from their lunch at the hospital, to grand vacations abroad, all expenses and luxuries paid, under the guise of a "conference", which really is just a euphimism for an extended promotional opportunity. In the end, what they hope is that the doctor will remember the name of the company and drug the next time they pull out their perscription pad. Drug companies realize that doctors are the sales force in their product distribution network.

I acknowlege I'm off topic a bit (forgive me - this issue is a bit personal for me), but my point is that pharmaceutical companies are far from altruistic agents in this. They have hired Peggy because they know she is someone who will sell their drug and make them big bucks. Of course they are paying her - it makes good business sense. And of course her involvement in the promotion is not unrealted to her own personal gain, regardless of the fact she honestly belives the drug to be effective. (Surely she is aware of other effective medications, but would not run around on talk shows promoting them). To see it otherwise is a bit naive in my view.

I guess I just find the whole notion of promoting and advertising perscription drugs uneccesary and manipulative to the general population who is not trained in bio chemistry. And for that reason, I do feel somewhat disappointed Peggy got involved.

I feel that if someone is sick, they could consult their doctor, who will (in theory) make the best medicial decision for them, as they are the ones who have the ability to accuratly compare options. Patients should not be in the business of considered customers of the drug companies. The doctors should (and as I mentioned, are!). But ultimately they are the ones who should make the drug choice. What does the average person know about why lipitor would make a better or worse choice for treating high cholesteral than any other brand or generic drug on the market? And if they can't what's the point of advertising to them, if not to manipulate? Why do I even need to know if this drug worked for Peggy? If I am sick, I will go to my doctor and he/she will make the drug choice decision for me (or together, based on side effect, costs, etc). I don't need Peggy spouting the benefits of lipitor for me.

Sorry for the rant.

Peace out,
Doug

[flippet]

Hm. While I don't completely agree with your post 100% the way you've stated it, I don't totally disagree with it either, except to say that while it's true that prescription drugs are advertised in order to make money (no one, in any industry spends money to advertise without expectation of a return gain of some sort), I don't agree that doctors just prescribe drugs willy-nilly, because a patient happens to want it. Some unethical ones may, but most aren't going to want to risk losing their license over it! If a patient does not have high cholesterol at all, then any doctor who prescribes a drug specifically for that problem can end up in a whole lot of hot water. On the other hand, if a patient does in fact have the condition they want the drug for, prescribing one is valid. There may be a whole range of drugs, name-brand and generic, that are possible to use for a certain condition. Many are quite similar, so in reality, one name brand drug over another won't make much difference. That's the soft spot the pharmaceutical companies are trying to hit by advertising to the public.


Originally posted by Doug
[

Pharmaceutical companies spend exhorbatant amounts of money on doctors already, for everything from their lunch at the hospital, to grand vacations abroad, all expenses and luxuries paid, under the guise of a "conference", which really is just a euphimism for an extended promotional opportunity. In the end, what they hope is that the doctor will remember the name of the company and drug the next time they pull out their perscription pad. Drug companies realize that doctors are the sales force in their product distribution network.

Firstly, though you're not entirely incorrect, you should know that the regulations on what pharmaceutical companies can give to doctors or medical staff have become rather strict this past year. At my company (yes, I work in pharmaceuticals), when the marketing department gave away to the employees a number of stuffed toys promoting our product, we were reminded numerous times that these WERE NOT, under ANY circumstances, to be passed on to any medical personnel, due to the new regulations. (If you want to know where the truckloads of money are really going, you should see what the doctors who run clinical drug trials demand to be paid. Exorbitant doesn't even begin to describe it---but if a company doesn't pay, they don't get doctors to run trials, and drugs don't make it to market, or to patients in need.)

You are right that pharmaceutical companies understand that it's the prescribing doctors who are the real sales force--which is why many, many drugs aren't even advertised to the general public. There isn't any need, especially for conditions that can't or shouldn't be self-diagnosed. My company has one drug on the market right now--you wouldn't have likely heard of it, because we don't advertise to the general public. However, our main competitor drug is advertised---but it isn't doing them all that much good...our drug is still the #1 prescribed of its kind. So, it doesn't really matter that a patient may have heard of the other drug...if the doctor likes our rather similar product better, and likes the way it works better, that's what he's going to recommend. (If the patient demands the one they've heard of, well, it is a rather similar drug, so why not, unless there's a medical reason not to.) Does it work for everyone? Of course not. Does it work for the condition for which it is prescribed? Yes, in most people. A doctor isn't going to know by looking which of two people with the same condition is going to be helped by a drug, and which isn't. Biology is a funny thing...even though something ought to work, sometimes it doesn't. In that case, something else is needed. But it doesn't mean that the first thing tried is ineffective for the condition in general--just for that particular patient.

I acknowlege I'm off topic a bit (forgive me - this issue is a bit personal for me), but my point is that pharmaceutical companies are far from altruistic agents in this. They have hired Peggy because they know she is someone who will sell their drug and make them big bucks. Of course they are paying her - it makes good business sense. And of course her involvement in the promotion is not unrealted to her own personal gain, regardless of the fact she honestly belives the drug to be effective. (Surely she is aware of other effective medications, but would not run around on talk shows promoting them). To see it otherwise is a bit naive in my view.

True.

I guess I just find the whole notion of promoting and advertising perscription drugs uneccesary and manipulative to the general population who is not trained in bio chemistry. And for that reason, I do feel somewhat disappointed Peggy got involved.

Promoting and advertising anything is manipulative. Celebrities get involved because 1) they believe in/like/use the product, and 2) they're getting paid to promote it. This goes for any product--shoes, fast food, computers, you name it. Your average commercial actor gets involved because they're getting paid--the Dell guy, for example. Why be disappointed in Peggy? She's not saying that Lipitor is right for everyone, she's saying that 1) it may be right for someone with high cholesterol, and 2) that it was right for her. Neither of these things are untrue or misleading. Unless you want to automatically believe that since someone you like likes something, you've got to like it too. (Yes, it's human nature, yes, that's what advertisers count on--but it's up to people to use their brains. That also goes for deciding whether you really want pizza for dinner, or if it's just because you just saw a commercial for Pizza Hut.)

Like you sort of said, people should go to their doctors--and for prescription meds, they HAVE to. If one drug is much like another, what's the harm in prescribing one over another? If the drugs in question are vastly different, then a patient shouldn't get what they don't need.


Anyway, way too long, and slightly OT. Sorry.

[Doug]

Hi flippet,

Interesting point of view (although others may find we have strayed way too far off topic... sorry!).

I agree with you as well that celebrities that advertise, generally all do it for money to a certain extent, and that all advertising is designed to manipulate, be it the the Dell guy, or Pizza hut, or whatever.

I guess what bugs me about percription drugs, is that the "consumer" target of the advertising really isn't qualified to make a decision about whether that perscription drug is really what they need or not (not having been trained) or to evaluate the difference between competiting perscription drugs.

In the case of computers, pizza, and one might say the majority of the retail world, there is at least the presumption that the consumer has some real ability to distinguish the products and make the best choice for themselves. When they really don't have that ability, the maniuplation factor in the advertising just seems somehow more devious to me.

I can choose what pizza looks better or what computer looks more flashy/powerful, etc. How can I truly evaluate if lipitor is the right drug for my high cholersteral problem?

And I guess that's where my issue with Peggy getting involved is. I would be perfectly comfortable seeing her cash in on gazillions of other opportunities. This one, I'm a bit less comfortable with.

I suppose I'm not likely to convince you of that though if you work for in pharma marketing, but it's interesting to exchange view points...

Cheers,
Doug

[olivia]

flippet:

No, I don't need to see Peggy's medical records nor do I wish to. It appears I wasn't entirely clear. Yes, Peggy does fall into the category I described; that's why I said she's as good as anyone to endorse Lipitor. I suppose it's that I just don't see Peggy pushing a cholesterol-reducing drug. To me, it just seems out of character and strange (but that's my issue having watched her on the ice and commentating for so many years). However, now that I really stop and think about it (thanks for making me think!), I really don't see anyone pushing a cholesterol-reducing drug. LOL

O-

[Halo girl]

Originally posted by LilRedRidingHood
I agree, Peach.

No Doctor I know is going to prescribe a drug just because a patient says they want it. A medical history and patient evaluation are factors in determining what drugs, if any, are administered.


Off topic again, but this statement is not true. My dad has high cholestrol and is given the choice of what kind, how many drugs, or even if he wants to take any at all. That's what is called patient choice. If his doctor had his way, my dad would be on all kinds of pills.

On the other hand, my grandmother's doctor lets her self prescribe herself. She's old and pretty much confined to her home, so she spends her days reading medical books and deciding what new ailment she has and what she need to fix it. Then on her next doctor visit, she has a list of problems and drugs she wants, and her doctor writes a prescription without even looking at her or doing tests. Just recently, the family has gotten involved and she has switched doctors, but some medicines she has been dependent on unneccesarily for years. For some doctors, keeping patients coming to them is a way for them to make money, so they will do whatever the patient wants to make them believe they really are ill. Not all doctors do this of course, but not all are the decent, ethical people you are talking about either.

That's what gets me about celebrity endorsing. There are some patients who will see Peggy or some other well known figure and think they need their drug. This isn't like using a toothpaste or a food product a famous person is seen using, as if you don't like those things, it's easy just to toss those things out. Taking percription drugs can have serious consequences if you aren't taking the right ones, and considering Peggy or any other celebrity isn't a doctor, I don't think they need to be putting the power of suggestion into people's minds over a serious matter.

[LilRedRidingHood]

Hi Halo-

I am glad to read that your granny got a new Doctor! Your post was scaring me about her prescribing her own meds.

I didn't mean to imply there aren't Doctors out there who are unethical when it comes to precriptions. What I did say was: " No Doctor I know....." in my original post.

I believe Peggy is as good a rep as any.