Disclaimers for herpes?

[vittoria]

Well, this takes a bit of explaining...

Was watching television... when behold!

A commercial for Valtrex.

Yes, its on the list of commercials I would rather not see like tampons, "Trojanman!", "That not so fresh feeling", and yeast infections, but..

Why is it that the disclaimer states that Valtrex is proven to reduce the risk of passing herpes to your partner "Proven ONLY in heterosexual couples"???!?!?!?!!??!


Um...

Anyone else get this?

And... have you seen any commercial disclaimers for any advertised meds that make absolutely no sense?


V

[ghytifrdnr]

I'm almost certain that the reason for the disclaimer is that in pre-release trials for the drug they used only hetero couples in the testing, and are only allowed to claim what has actually been proven. No other flavors of couple tested, you can't claim them.

:2cents:

[shameless agitator]

Nailed it in one.

[Doggie_Wood]

Absolutly correct ghytifrdnr. Herpes, all the better reason to wear a raincoat when taking a shower. :bigrin:

[mdvbi]

Let's not forget the real message here folks: Valtrex "reduces" risk of spreading herpes, a risk is a risk. If someone has it and says "it's ok I'm on valtrex", they don't get a pass. 'almost' only works in horseshoes and handgrenades.

[vittoria]

Let's not forget the real message here folks: Valtrex "reduces" risk of spreading herpes, a risk is a risk. If someone has it and says "it's ok I'm on valtrex", they don't get a pass. 'almost' only works in horseshoes and handgrenades.


Let's not forget atomic bombs... :tong:

Maybe it wasnt exactly clear... and once again the query was missed (I must speak in Latin):


"Proven ONLY in heterosexual couples"..

Doesnt that show the apparent lack of "giving a shit" about anyone else's sexual preference? Never wouldve thought personally that any company would narrow their research so poignantly--and an obvious thumb of the nose at anyone else. That kinda ticked me off.

The other question consisted of the drug companies constant list of fine print problems that their drugs can cause ( a drug to reduce insomnia can cause ...insomnia! for instance).

[csrakate]

I'm not so sure it isn't a matter of "giving a shit" but more like they can't produce evidence to non hetero couples...therefore covering their ass if a same sex couple finds that the same doesn't hold true in their case. Who knows what their reasoning is...or why they exclude them in the study....Could be a variety of reasons....like validity or the ability to prove the said sexuality of a case in study. Who even knows if the hetero couples in the study are truly just hetero. Regardless, the information they offer simply makes one hesitant to trust the drug as a "cure" and should keep all people aware of the possibility of infection.

Just my :2cents:

Hugs,
Kate

[arana]

I'm still trying to figure out when Herpes and any type of disease became "no big deal" and something you could just take a pill and everything was hunky dory. I especially liked the one commercial where they use to say that taking a pill for your herpes was "too much trouble" so try this new once a week pill or whatever. You have herpes for goodness sake. I would think taking a pill would be the easy part of that problem. It's sad these things are taken so lightly. No wonder kids don't think before they do things when the consequences are treated like "no big deal".

[bisexualinsocal]

Yeah I don't have a problem with this. Hetero couples comprise the vast VAST majority of couples in this country and world, I mean, it's not even close.

The nice people who make Valtrex are just doing what good businesses do and that's be conservative in the marketplace.

Good for them.

[shameless agitator]

Let's not forget atomic bombs... :tong:
The other question consisted of the drug companies constant list of fine print problems that their drugs can cause ( a drug to reduce insomnia can cause ...insomnia! for instance).The laundry list of possible side effects happen with all meds (look up aspirin in the PDR sometime). The reason for this is the way clinical trials are done. You put 30-40 people on the med for 2 weeks, don't let them leave the facility, serve them standardized meals, don't let them have nicotine or caffeine or really do much of anything. You then watch them for symptoms. Anything that occurs with any of the test subjects that you can't definitively prove was unrelated to the drug then must be listed as a possible side effect. This is why nearly everything lists headaches & insomnia. How likely are you to get a group of 30 people where nobody experiences either of these for a couple weeks?