You Won’t See Me, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld
May 17, 2014 Martha Thomases 3 Comments
The newest advertisement that is driving me bonkers, right up there with ads for boner pills, car insurance, cars, beer and vaginal strengtheners is for a new drug for blind people.
The commercial itself is like many many many commercials for new drugs, including an explanation of what the drug is supposed to treat. The ad says that there is a condition called “non-24,” which affects people who don’t see sunlight or darkness. Their sleep patterns get derailed, so that they might stay awake at night and fall asleep during the day.
I have no doubt that this is something that is disruptive to those people who suffer from it. While what happened to me was in no way as severe or frightening, I found that just living without electricity for a few days during Hurricane Sandy completely messed up my circadian rhythms.
But here’s the thing: Why is Vanda, the pharmaceutical company that makes the drugs, advertising on television? Why do they go to the trouble of including their web-site url on screen? Why do they hire male and female actors of different races? Their target customer can’t SEE any of these things.
And then maybe you go to the website (in the link above). You know those annoying sites that start blaring music and voice-overs as soon as you connect? This isn’t like that. It’s all text and pictures. I have no idea how a blind person would deal with it.
But why take a drug? Doesn’t an alarm clock work just as well?
I suspect that the real target audience for this commercial might be the families of blind people, who are irritated (or worse) by their loved ones’ disruptive schedules. It’s easier to give someone a pill than deal with the problem.
Drug companies love chronic conditions. They love it when patients require medication on a regular basis for life, instead of finding an actual cure. It doesn’t matter if it’s something simple, like an allergy, or something life threatening, like cancer.
There is a ton of much profit in these drugs. Like so much in our political landscape, this means that our healthcare system is affected. You can look at this chart for the tip of the iceberg.
You know where there isn’t a profit? Doing what we can to encourage people to take control of their own health. I’m not saying that every disease is a result of a poor diet and lack of exercise, or that people who don’t wear sunscreen deserve to get skin cancer. Instead, I’m saying that it feels good to feel like a participant in one’s own life and healthcare. That we do people a service when we point out that maybe it’s not good for their kids to eat 10 pounds of sugar a year just from their breakfast cereals.
Sure, medicine is a great thing when you need it. But when you don’t, when you take a pill just because some pharmaceutical company told you to, you don’t improve your health, just the company’s bottom line. Your life isn’t better. You’re just passively consuming more and more.
Ask questions. Knowledge is power.
Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, always wanted an alarm clock that didn’t wake her with buzzing or clanging, but with a round of applause.

Mike Gold
May 17, 2014 - 11:50 am
I give the families of the sight-impaired the benefit of the doubt. I think most are in it not so much to lessen their own load, but to provide relief to their loved ones. Otherwise, a lot more blind people would be pushed down manholes. I know from our work with John Ostrander than severe eye issues can be delayed or arrested for a time, but are almost impossible to cure. That’s why our current crop of Tony Starks are working on sight prosthetics.
There are some wacky sounding problems that many believe to be manufactured by the drug companies that are, indeed, quite real. Restless leg syndrome affects up to 10% of the population and is also regarded as a significant sleep disorder.
I’m the last person to go to extremes to defend the pharmacology cartel. Their only motive is profit, and they will not spend their resources on cures for or relief from diseases that would not be sufficiently profitable to the company. They palm this off on “the stockholders,” but, of course, most of those stockholders are not actual human beings.
Ten pounds of sugar from boxed cereals isn’t necessarily all that destructive to children who are typically hyperactive (by adult standards). The problem is two-fold: sugar is extremely addictive and that addiction lasts forever, and the combination of salt and sugar is all the more addictive, particularly in children, and the combination of substances potentiate each other.
These are the real problems. Before the massive spread of children-oriented breakfast cereals in the early 1950s, kids were raised on Gerbers baby food, oatmeal, cream-of-wheat, malt-o-meal, and other hot goopy homey substances that had the consistency of bat guano, and probably the taste (informed opinions are hard to come by on that). Gerbers had enough sugar and salt to turn your child into the Incredible Hulk. And in order to get through the goopy guano breakfasts, you had to mix in at least as much sugar as found in a bowl of Kellogg’s Sugar Smacks. National Institute on Drug Abuse says it’s more difficult for people to control their eating habits than narcotics. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/01/health/salt-sugar-fat-moss-time/
Howard Cruse
May 17, 2014 - 2:56 pm
Seems to me that both the TV ads and the web site are intended for family members who may be genuinely concerned about the household’s blind folks who are having their circadian rhythms mangled by the absence of daytime-nighttime cues. I’ve never had to personally deal with that disability, of course, but I’m not sure alarm clocks would suffice as a remedy. If there’s a pill that can be genuinely helpful, I’m not ready to think ill of a pharmaceutical company that can provide it.
What bothers me is the involvement of the profit motive in decisions about which medical issues are given priority. The fights against diseases that seem especially intractable and that, therefore, promise no near-term payoffs to researchers who doggedly engage in the struggle anyway should never find themselves short on funding, even if taxes need to be raised to support them outside the profit-oriented research institutions.
Tax-phobia will present obstacles, admittedly, but maybe someone will come up with a pill for that.
Mike Gold
May 17, 2014 - 2:58 pm
Howard, the did — but it’s not legal!