aumd03 2 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 This isn't as much an issue with HIV/AIDS or homosexuality, but an issue with people taking personal responsibilty. I was so angry when I read this article on CNN http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/21/news/compa...dex.htm?cnn=yes Its amazing to me that none of these people think that its the responsiblity of the person involved to control their primal urges rather than the drug company. Its not like this company is putting a lethal weapon in their hand, just restoring normal physiology. I'm amazed people in america will stand for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 No pun here, but it's hard to deny that Viagra hasn't spent a fortune on advertisement which depicts their drug as anything short of a recreational aid. Seriously, if Viagra hadn't been pitched as anything other than just a impotency drug, where would the sales be ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsixfive 328 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 What a bunch of stiffs. Hopefully the pressure of such a big case isn't too hard on the judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aumd03 2 Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 No pun here, but it's hard to deny that Viagra hasn't spent a fortune on advertisement which depicts their drug as anything short of a recreational aid. Seriously, if Viagra hadn't been pitched as anything other than just a impotency drug, where would the sales be ? I don't think its portrayed as anything more than an ED drug. Its just ED is associated with recreation. ED is unique because people don't routinely bring it up on visits to the dr and until people know about drug options available. On the other hand, some drugs have no reason to advertise to the masses. For example I see people routinely asking for a change to very expensive rheumatoid arthritis drugs from their current drugs on a regular bases when they have osteoarthirits which is like apples and oranges and will not benefit them at all. Previous to Viagra, the only beneficial meds were local injections of muscle relaxants which were painful and had to be carefully titrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Uh...either way...its only an ENHANCER. People that are using it for recreation only use it for...um...stamina or whatever. So are they saying people WOULDNT otherwise have sex if the viagra wasnt present? Thats just stupid. The disease can be spread, even if the sex is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,253 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 The "root" of the issue: The suit also requests that Pfizer turn over profits gained from misleading ads and pay AHF's costs of treating AIDS and other illnesses linked to Viagra use. They are looking for another revenue stream besides donations, obviously. Good luck with that. I don't thing they have a leg to stand on -- AHF's suit looks quite impotent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.