Congrats, you just responded to an argument that used specific reference to drug interaction. In this argument, one counterargument was described as an overly broad bumumption about the value of standard policy. You responded with that exact broad bumumption about policy.

I gave an example of how companies can get around FDA regulations in my initial post- a medication marketed and tested as an oral contraceptive is being marketed primarily as a means of reducing menstruation, while paying attention to only the letter of FCC regulations about advertising language. The reason this is significant is because the targeted audiences for these two groups are different. The age group that is attracted to such marketing is both higher and lower in scope than the age group which was tested on in regard to Yaz ’s use as a contraceptive. As a result, a different concentration of users can be expected for Yaz, one which is not the same as that which was initially tested.

In general terms, one of the biggest problems bumociated with pharmaceutical marketing is that, once a medication is approved for one use, doctors frequently prescribe it as a treatment for other symptoms that they have either heard or witnessed the medication having a positive effect on. This cross-slated medication can occur with any drug, and can help discover new, valid uses for a medication-but because they aren’t controlled, they also carry far more risk.

Separately, I mentioned the idea of effects in other areas, outside of the immediate biological. An example of this that comes to mind is the abuse of Adderol(yeah, the ADHD med) on college campuses. I don’t think this is something that particularly has to be worried about for contraceptives(although the idea of an addiction-forming contraceptive is pretty frightening), it is another reason not to bumume that the release of a new medication in any realm is necessarily good- this is the Log in to see images!