The pharmaceutical industry, like the larger healthcare industry, goes out of its way to address problems which are profitable but of dubious urgency. Coincidentally, I'm sure, they seem a little more concerned about one gender than the other. We have dozens of male pattern baldness treatments and an unceasing parade of magic dick pills, yet the side effects of contraception aren't getting any less severe and some insurers still won't cover it. I've always hoped that we might even the playing field by having drugmakers devote less R&D to Rogaines and Viagras and more to life-threatening diseases and conditions regardless of who is affected by them. Instead, it looks like we're going to begin leveling the playing field by developing equally stupid drugs for women.
This brings me to the Latisse commercial you've probably seen as part of a summer marketing blitz. You know, the one starring Brooke Shields touting a drug which promises to bring an end to the global menace of insufficiently long eyelashes (hypotrichosis).
Yes, this is a real thing.
Now, I suppose that having no eyelashes would be a serious medical problem, but no amount of bullshitting can make the pitch used in this commercial sound legitimate. Yes, Latisse was developed as a glaucoma treatment many years ago, but someone still spent a lot of R&D money figuring out a cosmetic use which would let the manufacturer extend its patent.
It's good that big pharma has given all of the serious diseases such a vigorous thrashing that it can turn its attention to gender-based body hair insufficiencies on equal terms.
Drew says:
The first time I saw the Latisse commercial, I had to rewind the DVR to make sure I was hearing it correctly. A medication to make your eyelashes full? Wha?
Drew
dbsmall says:
1) The Latisse commerical strikes me as though it's an SNL fake commercial. I need to do some introspection about why Rogaine commercials never seemed fake to me. I don't have hair loss issues, either way. (Maybe it's that the previous solutions for Men were a hat, shaving, or a toupee, all of which were already laughable. Whereas the previous solutions for women were makeup or false eyelashes, and that wasn't quite as funny?)
2) I truly don't object to a company doing what it can to be profitable. Likewise, as long as these companies aren't making this nonsense their *primary* research, it's fine. Profit enables them to spend money on R&D for more serious problems.
3) I understood "Viagra" (both for men and for women), as a mechanism for those whose physiology doesn't match their libido. But I'm puzzled that a new crop of pills claims to improve the libido in addition to the blood flow. WTF? If you don't wanna do it, don't do it?
4) I am more disgusted at the fact that we the people can support so many magic dick pills on the market.
5) These problems may be much easier to solve than the "serious issues", so perhaps profitable, but frivolous R&D, is necessary to fund the serious R&D…
6) I thought statins were the big selling drug…bigger than Viagra.
7) I'm again frustrated at we the people. Magic Dick Pills and statins would still have application, but with a *much* smaller market, if people would just take care of themselves. Sure, sure, there are those folks who need help, due to genetic causes. But if you're an active, non-obese person, there's a good chance you can get it up, and that your cholesterol levels are in check.
8) http://www.small.to/article.php/20020812170227454
9) Of course, the lunacy is elevated as the cretins continue to clone and feed. And I own two TV's.
Desargues says:
"…dozens of male pattern baldness treatments…" Um, can you name another one besides Rogaine? And then there's a prescription-based rug, but it's never advertised. You must have felt the marketing impact of the four or five drugs for limp-dickness. That makes it feel like a dozen of them. (Also, in the process, the assholes who make Viagra have tainted forever the charm of Elvis's Viva Las Vegas.)
I agree with your remarks about the need to minimize the side-effects of contraceptive pills. But here's a little-known fact: there is an alternative that greatly minimizes them. In fact, it avoids them altogether. And it's even safer than the pill. It's called an intrauterine device, or IUD. You can get one for a few hundred dollars, but it lasts ten years, which I guess makes it less expensive than the pill. But do you ever see them advertised? No. Why is that? It's a question that's been bothering me for a while now.
At the health center on the campus where I work right now (a small, private, rich and very liberal university in the mid-Atlantic) they don't even mention IUDs in the leaflets on contraception they give out to women. Not a mention of it, much less useful information on how to get one. I found that baffling. Instead, they tout the benefits of abstinence, the most laughably stupid piece of advice for an undergrad if there ever was one. Get this: under 'disadvantages,' they only say, "it removes one form of non-verbal communication from a relationship." Dude, can you believe these dumbasses? "Don't have sex, kids. It's no big deal; it merely gets rid of one form of communication."
Ah, and also mutual masturbation. IUD's are a no-no, apparently, but dry humping is totally OK. I gotta find out what sort of fucked-up Christian weirdo wrote those goddamn leaflets.
Desargues says:
I mean to say, a prescription-based drug, obviously. A lapsus calami of gigantic proportions.
ladiesbane says:
To put it more bluntly than I did in the medical care / insurance discussion: that some people have a need for medical treatment (or drugs) does not in any way oblige other people (such as drug makers) to provide it; any more than it obliges you, as an intelligent person, to go to medical school so that you can devote your life to tending the sick. They need it, you can do it, you'd be an asshole not to. And, by the way, you have to work for a pittance, because a lot of people seem to think that they deserve top-notch care for very little money.
A lot of pop drugs were discovered by accident and marketed for their incidental properties. The discovery of something which doesn't cure kidney disease, but which does create a dry bladder, can be sold to people who would rather take risks and not have to wear adult diapers. This does not mean they are not still searching for cures to kidney disease.
There are oodles of specialty meds for the treatment of serious illness that are very new. The difference is that instead of seeing an ad on TV and asking your doctor for some, you as a sick person go to your doctor, who tells you about the drug. It's two different lines of business no matter how much they have in common.
Matthew says:
Desargues – it's true that there are not really tons and tons of male baldness treatments, there is one more: propecia.
So there are two treatments, which admittedly is not dozens, but there's not just the one, either.
I only see this because I see commercials for it more often than for rogaine, for some reason.
MarilynJean says:
A quick thing about IUDs: they're generally not marketed or promoted to younger women because IUDs are designed ideally for women who have already had a child or two. I won't go into the biology of it all, but that's the simple answer. There is one commerical out for an IUD treatment and if you notice, it shows a married woman who already has children.
Ed: I couldn't agree more. But I see the whole supply and demand of it all. Of course it all points to a bigger problem with gender-bias, capitalism, etc.
Ashley says:
On the side note of IUDs:
IUDs are awesome. They do have some minor side effects though. They can cause heavy cramping, bleeding, and anemia. So, it's not totally true that they don't have side effects. They do have fewer than most forms of birth control though.
Also, you can get an IUD without having had children. You just have to find a doctor willing to do it (your chances of expelling the IUD before the 5-10 years are up are much greater).
I think the reason they're not more widely promoted is partly because older IUDs (in the early 80s) in some cases made it much easier to get infections and other complications. Also, they're not a good idea if you're not in a monogamous relationship because it creates a lot of complications if you do happen to contract an STI. That, and I feel like insurance companies/doctors feel like they're getting screwed. The cost of a Mirena brand IUD? $575. Insertion can run up to another 100-150. I have good insurance, and you know what mine cost, insertion and all? $10. And it lasts until 2013. Seems like a lot of people could make more money if I was shelling out $40/month (or even just $10 every month, with insurance).
Shane says:
The biggest problem I have with this particular commercial and the trend in general is that it isn't just attempting to solve trivial problems, it is using marketing to create them. I have never heard a women lament the lack of fullness in her lashes, but I am sure I will now. They contribute to the negative self image of women, and men, by creating flaws where they didn't necessarily exist before. Already have a boob job, botox, and perfectly white teeth…great but you aren't really good looking until your eye lashes are fuller…so keep spending.
Granted, the majority of marketing is about creating needs we didn't realize we had, but it seems more disturbing when it is focused in on drugs and our bodies.
Desargues says:
Matthew: I knew about Propecia, and its generic version, Finasteride. But I never saw any commercials for them on TV (truth be told, I don't have cable, so what I see is not much).
Marilyn: Please do explain the physiology behind your answer. I'm increasingly confused by the rationale for denying IUDs to certain women. My wife has one, and we don't have children; her doc never warned against it. At the health center on campus, they only recommend it for women of any age who are not sexually promiscuous. But again, no explanation for that is given.
Speaking of birth control pills, life once again lamely tries to imitate art.
Shell Goddamnit says:
A note about IUDs – most of the IUDs sold these days incorporate hormonal contraceptive as well – I had to special-order my copper-only IUD. No children here, either, but the doc had no problem agreeing to install. She said "they don't like to" use IUDs on women who haven't given birth, but she also ignored "them" w/o a qualm.
I don't know why IUDs are so sub-rosa They were all pulled off the market when the Dalkon shield caused some deaths, but the Dalkon was very different from regular IUDs, so I still don't know the rationale there. They were then un-pulled but no one bothered to tell the public…
Shell Goddamnit says:
Oh yeah…and my insurance covered NO PART of the IUD or its installation. I have pre-tax reimbursement & that allowed it as a medical expense. Might be one reason why it's not hugely popular, drs usually try to minimize non-covered procedures for various reasons, and so might not even mention it to most women.
Desargues says:
Shane: Of course, your point about artificial needs is correct. But it's quite unclear what the antidote to that might be. In America, they're reluctant to place any restrictions on most marketing, no matter how stupid or deeply useless the product — unless some pressure group (mad mothers or boozing teenagers, easily riled-up Christians, etc.) starts making noise. I'm not sure a mass effort to educate people about the silliness of wanting to buy so much inutile crap would achieve anything. Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and other Frankfurt Schoolmen have been railing since the Sixties about how advanced capitalism creates artificial needs and pressures us to fulfill them. Yet despite their jeremiads, Westerners have only gotten fatter, more indebted, and ever more overwhelmed by stuff they bought compulsively.
I guess only a rude awakening will do the trick. Probably not until the Chinese decide to cash in their T-bills will most of us realize we've been buying mountains of shit we don't really need with money we didn't really have.
Desargues says:
And a parting gift to cheer you up for the weekend.
jazzbumpa says:
In my one and only marketing class, we were taught that there is no difference between wants and needs – which seems to be the basis for most consumer-directed advertising. To want something is to need it.
I countered with: Yes, I want a Porsche Carrera, but what I need is transportation. Hence, my Plymouth Horizon (It was a long time ago.)
For some reason, nobody was impressed.
Desargues says:
Evidence is ambivalent on this point you make, Jazzbumpa. Small-breasted women don't need implants, even though some may want one. On the other hand, men of modest endowment both want and need larger members. ;-)
j says:
We are studying compounds like Latisse in my lab as possible anti-cancer agents. The more research, the better.
Though there is assuredly a dropoff in marginal returns.
MarilynJean says:
Shane: well said. It is more alarming that the market creates a need when there wasn't one. Yes, some women want longer, fuller lashes, but that is what mascara and temporary eye lashes are for.
Desargues: Ashley touched on it in her comment. It's not that women who have not had children can't have one, it's just that it's not highly recommended because your body is more likely to expel it. And like she mentioned: younger women and college-aged women, at least those not in monogamous relationships, have to deal with STI risks, so the IUD is not promoted as much compared to, say, condoms. At least this is the message I received as a trained volunteer for Planned Parenthood. And I certainly can't disagree with the cost: IUDs end up being way more cost effective than something like the pill or even the ring.
In the end, everyone's reproductive systems and experiences are different. It's important that women have all their options presented to them and that they have access to them.
Desargues says:
Marilyn: I feel like we're moving toward the same conclusion. I was lamenting the lack of an extra option for young women in college. I don't know how likely an IUD is to be expelled, but I do suspect that some undergrads may forget to take their pill daily. As to remembering to ask a male freshman to put on a condom in the heat of the passion — or at a frat party where even the pets are drunk — I have my doubts that it works every time. No such worries when you have an IUD, though.
jon says:
From what I understand, Rogaine was originally intended as something to expand blood flow, which has multitudes of useful applications beyond growing hair. If rubbed on genitals, increased blood flow can be helpful. And on that subject I heard that Viagra was originally a heart medication, at least that was the intention. But it had a different effect.
Research is one thing. Marketing is another. What's advertised isn't the only part of the story about what pharmaceutical companies do. That certainly isn't to say that priorities are where they need to be, but it really isn't fair to point to only a few money makers as a true statement about all that's going on.
Amanda says:
What about Depo Provera (the shot)? I am at higher risk for stroke due to my migraines, and so no doctor will prescribe me any contraceptive that containes estrogen. The shot contains progestin (sp?) and absolutely no estrogen, has fewer side effects than the normal pill and you can't expel it like the IUD (and really, if I can avoid having something alien in my uterus I'll suck it up and deal with a needle). It eliminates the need for menstrual cycles because it prevents the uterine wall from building a lining, so it's even safer than those "have 4 periods a year" commercials because in that case that's as long as you should go before getting rid of the baby blanket inside you.
It costs just as much as if you bought 3 packs of mixed or estrogen only pills at the monthly insurance rate ($20 a piece on my insurance) but it has only ever been mentioned to me once I owned up to my aura migraines and you never see an add for them on tv. You only need to get them once every three months, and once you get the shot you make the appointment for the next one and you get reminder calls to make sure you get the next shot at the right time.
Only real side effect I've experienced is weight gain, but an extra 20 pounds that I can't seem to get off is better than being preggers, having a monthly period, or having a stroke, so I'll take it. In my opinion more women should be offered this option as opposed to the daily pill.
Dick McDonald says:
Please, can you PM me and tell me few more thinks about this, I am really fan of your blog.