Month: March 2024

WWII was one of the most influential events of the previous century. If any of the outcomes had been different, the world would be drastically different than it is today. There are many factors that contributed to the allies winning the war, one of the most influential was not the development of the atomic bomb or the industrial mobilization of America, but rather, the development of penicillin.

Penicillin was the first antibiotic ever developed that enabled the allies to fight off infection in their soldiers, enabling them to save more troops. In WWI, more troops died from infection than from war-inflicted wounds. As the allies were able to keep more of their troops on the ground, they were able to overpower the axis powers in Europe.

Following the discovery of penicillin, there was a rush to discover more antibiotics that would combat diseases caused by bacterial infections. However, as more and more antibiotics were applied, scientists began to notice that the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment began to rapidly decline: bacteria had mutated in ways that made them resistant to antibiotics.

Nowadays, many of the companies and corporations that had started out by developing antibiotics now dedicate their time and effort towards developing small molecule therapeutics to target genetic borne illnesses or oncology treatments. No corporation or investor is willing to spend billions of dollars developing an antibiotic that will lose its effectiveness over a few years once introduced to the public, or alternatively, be indefinetly shelfed by the FDA as a “break in case of emergency” antibiotic.

However, antibiotics remain the first line of defense when it comes to staving off an infection. Thereby antibiotic resistance is still on the rise, and its an increasingly pressing issue threatening public health.

One of the main issues that prevent meaningful moves to combat antibiotic resistance is the spread of misinformation by those in power. A particular case is during the anthrax panic, when politicians and influential individuals were being sent anthrax in their mail. Anthrax is a very dangerous infectious of the lungs caused by B.anthracis that is almost always fatal.

During this scare, politicians urged people to take antibiotics as a “preemptive measure” against infection. Clearly, they had no idea how antibiotics work: they kill bacteria that is already there.

By applying an antibiotic “preemptively”, you inadvertently confer an advantage on those one or two bacterial cells that — by random chance — happen to have a mutation that makes them resistant to the antibiotic. These bacterial cells will quickly take over the population, and just like that, the antibiotic is no longer effective.

Clearly there is the need for policy to educate the public about antibiotics and their importance, especially as antibiotic resistance is likely to become a major public health issue in the 21st century. However, given the nation’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, such attempts do not look promising.

If you’ve ever watch channel TV in the last 10 years, then you definitely seen your fair share of pharmaceutical advertisements. These direct to consumer ads illustrate the benefits and symptoms of their product, and urge their viewers to ask their doctor is that medication is right for them. While these direct to consumer ads seem to be integral now to our experience with watching television, the United States is one of two countries that allows pharmaceutical companies to advertise their products in this way.

Before the rise of such advertisements, pharmaceutical companies focused primarily on outreach to medical professional and doctors. Back then, it was expected that medical professionals would interpret the medicine and determine whether or not to prescribe it to their patients. However, in tangent with a rising sentiment that the individual should be involved in making healthcare decisions, pharmaceutical companies began to spend money on Direct to Consumer (DTC) advertisements. In 1996, pharmaceutical companies spend $550 million on drugs ads. This increased more than 10-fold by 2020, reaching $6.58 billion annually.

Like all such developments, there are many different views on how beneficial or detrimental DTC advertising is, especially as user data becomes increasingly accessible and personalized advertisments become more pervasive.

On one side, people view these drug ads as serving a public good as they educate consumers, increase engagement with beneficial medications that would’ve otherwise flown under the radar for a less beneficial alternative, and encouraging individuals to play an active role in their health — instead of taking a back seat and potentially getting mistreated or misdiagnosed.

However, there is concern regarding the boom in DTC advertisments in the past 2 decades. Many are worried that they may lead to the use of more epxensive branded medication, rather than just as effective, cheaper, generic options, and that people will automatically turn to perscriptions before attempting lifestyle changes/adopting healthier behaviros. Individuals may also become anxious that they possess a condition they don’t have, which may lead to unnecessary prescription of drugs that may actually be detrimental to patient health.

Additional concerns arise when one takes into account the rise in demand for personalized healthcare. On one hand, obtaining personalized treatment would be beneficial to patients. On the other, the infringement of privacy involved in utilizing user data to advertise prescriptions that an algorithm believes you need raises additional issues.

It is unlikely that DTC advertisements will go away any time soon. However as media changes over time, the advertisements may change and shift to better obtain public attention — switching out TV channel advertisements for shorts on Tik Tok and reels on Instagram.