Posted on 01/22/2007 8:24:53 AM PST by Risha
AIDS group to sue Pfizer over Viagra ads
Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:02 AM ET
By Lisa Richwine
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A major U.S. AIDS treatment group plans to file a lawsuit on Monday that accuses drug giant Pfizer Inc. of illegally promoting recreational use of its blockbuster impotence pill Viagra.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) told Reuters it wants Pfizer to be barred from marketing Viagra as a lifestyle or sexual enhancement drug. The nonprofit organization said Pfizer's actions had led to risky behavior by men and an increase in HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
"Pfizer has created and contributed to the perception of Viagra as a safe, sexy, lifestyle, recreational drug, to be frequently used regardless of the degree, or even existence of" erectile dysfunction, the group said in draft legal documents.
Pfizer, the world's largest drug maker, said it was committed to appropriate Viagra use and urged men to see a doctor for a proper diagnosis. The drug is sold by prescription.
AHF, in its legal arguments, pointed to several Viagra promotions from recent years, including a 2005 newspaper ad that featured a smiling man asking, "What are you doing on New Year's Eve?"
Another ad that ran near the 2006 Super Bowl urged men to "Be this Sunday's MVP" and ask their doctors about Viagra.
Pfizer's Viagra Web site asks readers, "Want to improve your sex life?" and says the drug can help men who have erection difficulties "once in a while."
AHF President Michael Weinstein said the promotions made Viagra sound like a "party drug" that can make sex more pleasurable for healthy men -- a claim the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved.
Men in the ads also look much younger than Pfizer's earlier Viagra pitchman, former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, who is now 83, he said.
"Bob Dole has been replaced by the hunky 40-something guy who looks like he can really have a good time," Weinstein said in an interview. "The message they are sending out is that any and every male should take it," he added.
Studies show evidence of recreational Viagra use among men who have sex with men, sometimes to overcome the erection-inhibiting effects of alcohol or street drugs such as ecstasy and crystal methamphetamine, AHF said.
The group asked Pfizer repeatedly to alter its ads, Weinstein said.
In 2004, the FDA objected to a television commercial suggesting Viagra could return a man to the "wild thing" of his younger days. The FDA said the ad, showing a man sprouting devilish horns, made an unproven claim that men could regain a youthful level of sexual desire. Pfizer halted that campaign.
AHF's lawsuit, to be filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, asks that Pfizer be prohibited from running similar messages and ordered to fund awareness ads about sexually transmitted disease risks and Viagra.
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.
California-based AHF runs AIDS clinics in the United States, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia that provide medical care and services to more than 53,000 people even if they cannot pay.
Pfizer spokeswoman Shreya Prudlo said the company was not aware of the planned lawsuit. She said Pfizer "has always been committed to safe and appropriate use of Viagra" and that the drug's label and promotions stated "Viagra does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV."
Sales of Viagra, known generically as sildenafil, reached $1.6 billion worldwide in 2005.
Sales growth has been crimped by competition from rival impotence medicine Cialis, which is sold by a joint venture of Eli Lilly & Co. and Icos Corp.. Cialis works up to 36 hours, while Viagra works for about four hours.
This might be a hard case to win.
Wood it?
They always go after the deep pockets.......
What a load! Viagra won't increase AIDS, promiscuity will. There's a total disconnect here.
but I'm sure pfizer's lawyers will rise to the occasion.
I suppose the idea of personal responsibility is now completely dead.
Ummmm.......ALL use of Viagra is for recreational purposes.......that doesn't make Pfizer guilty of anything.
What a bunch of dicks.
Yes but it's nobody's fault.
Why don't they sue every Gay bar in America?
If they do lose the suit, they should just stiff the plaintiffs.
But you just know that their fees are going to be stiff.
This center of this case is in their legal briefs.
Is that a pistol in your pocket - or is your Viagra glad to see me?
The misleading advertising I notice is the "4 hour erection" and they tell you to call your doctor. Hell, I'd call the news media!
Are you saying Viagra isn't a legitimate business deduction?
Since I hold pfizer stocks, I hope they don't take it in the shorts from these gays.
what the faggots really want (but can't say) are E.D. ads without both men and women which represents normalcy....shoot a couple ads in key west or the castro district, and this suit would go away....
"from The Times, September 1845:
"Mr. King... misstated the fact in saying that he had put a piece of lighted paper to the master's nose while asleep in that house; it was his hot pipe that he applied to the sleeper's nostrils, at the same time crying: Come, old chap, keep your pecker up."
"This might be a hard case to win."
Butt, it just might be winnable.
In an era of bogus lawsuits, this is one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard. Since the drug treats erectile dysfunction, an ad for the drug would inevitably be seen to promote sexual activity. That's the PURPOSE of the drug. It is not Pfizer's responsibility to tell men when to have or not have sex, or who to have it or not have it with. And it is especially odd for an AIDS group to file this lawsuit, since the AIDS lobby has ALWAYS insisted on the right of infected men to have sex, as long as it's "protected."
Where "Can I push in your stool" is a pick-up line.
Lawyers looking for class action monies.
Does AHF really expect ads that belabor the symptoms Viagra treats? I hardly think those who could benefit from the drug want to be reminded.
Their time would be better spent going after hardened criminals.
I'm sure the alcohol, ectasy, and crystal meth use have nothing to do with the risky sexual behaviors.
Nope....bet you could deduct it if you were in the porn industry. Call it a "work expense".
- Using this product with the same sex may cause sleeplessness, rectal bleeding, and AIDS. -
My brother tried it and said it wouldn't go down for hours. Painfull too. Said he could hang his towel on it while shaving the next morning.
A few years back I remember reading where a male porno star complained that increased competition due to Viagra was costing him roles in porn movies. Seems that he was able to 'get it up' on cue, where most other aspiring male porn stars, perhaps more inhibited, had a problem. Then Viagra came along and changed the dynamics increasing the competition for male porn roles. My guess ... the guy getting aced out of porn roles because of Viagra will be next in line to sue Pfizer.
it seems the gist of the Viagra adds has sparked a bone of contention within the gay community.
......did I do good?
>>I'm sure the alcohol, ectasy, and crystal meth use have nothing to do with the risky sexual behaviors.<<
Good point.... alcohol has undoubtedly contributed more to AIDS than Viagra yet nobody in their right mind wants prohibition again.
To the extent the government has a role in this it should be discouraging risky behavior and making sure protection is widely and cheaply available.
The trend to barebacking is much more dangerous than Viagra.
I plan on taking viagra to help me retain water in the next radio station water drinking contest.
Who do I sue?
If you went to the ER, everybody'd wanna see........You could charge money.......
I've been convinced this is these are the primary users of these drugs for some time.
I might be willing to show the cute nurses - even let them play with it - but I would never charge money. What kind of guy do you think I am?
You can even watch a baseball or football game with your kid without the "four hour erection" commercials being broadcast.
I'm sure that will make them snap to attention.
It is a recreational sex drug. The real problem is when and during what broadcasts these commercials actually air. It is despicable that these "four hour erection" commercials air during family viewing times and events.
Ha ha! Guess I'm out of luck then.
I just like seeing anybody taking on these b@st@rds for polluting the airwaves with their disgusting product the way they do.
This is a contradiction.
Pot....Kettle....Black.
They're really pulling a boner.
But I'd better bone up on the subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.