Free Addict Nation by Sandra Mohr Jane Velez-Mitchell Page A

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Terry Bradshaw did a campaign dubbed “The Terry Bradshaw Depression Tour,” sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, which makes the antidepressants Wellbutrin and Paxil. 28 During that campaign, Bradshaw was quoted as saying, “The beauty of it is that there are medications that work. Look at me. I’m always happy-go-lucky, and people look at me and find it shocking that I could be depressed.” 29
    The star-studded list of prescription pitch artists goes on and on. The New York Times notes, “Most of the celebrity antidepressant promotions are unbranded, meaning the television commercials do not mention the product by name, but often refer consumers to a website that does.” 30 The bottom line? They are singing a siren song to lead customers down a pathway to the drug. We all know consumers are more likely to buy a product if they think a star is using it too. As a branding strategist told the New York Times , “The reality is people want a piece of something they can’t be . . . They live vicariously through the products and services that those celebrities are tied to. Years from now, our descendants may look at us and say, ‘God, these were the most gullible people who ever lived.’” 31
    There is a growing consensus that it’s insidious to use celebrities to hock antidepressants, which can have serious side effects and are prone to abuse, to the general public. Critics say the worst part is that it’s sometimes not clear if and when stars are being paid by a drug company to share their health story with the public. When Kathleen Turner appeared on national television to talk about her battle with rheumatoid arthritis, many viewers probably did not realize she was reportedly being paid by drug companies that sell a drug to treat rheumatoid arthritis. 32 Now, many networks are going out of their way to ask stars, beforehand, if they’re pitching for a drug company and will tell viewers about any ties they uncover. If only Uncle Sam were as vigilant.
    The Food and Drug Administration is supposed to regulate drug companies but often behaves more like a shill for the drug industry, looking out for the industry’s interests even when they conflict with the interests of consumers. In 2000, a USA Today exposé found “more than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions . . . The conflicts typically include stock ownership, consulting fees or research grants.” Following a barrage of criticism, the FDA has tightened its rules to bar anyone with a conflicting financial interest of over fifty thousand dollars from serving on its advisory committees, but there continues to be a complex waiver system that is ripe for manipulation. 33
    The United States government needs to get out of bed with Big Pharma and end the incestuous relationship between the FDA and drug makers. But that’s not likely to happen as long as the drug industry retains its chokehold on Washington. The Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) is the largest single-industry lobbying group in America. Big Pharma has more lobbyists than there are members of both houses of Congress! 34 So, until lobbyists are banned, which isn’t likely to happen any time soon, it’s up to the consumer to make less self-destructive choices.
    Sitting Through the Feelings
    The proliferation of antidepressants, antianxiety drugs, and painkillers raises a profound philosophical question. Should we try to avoid pain or . . . just experience it? Let’s remove from the discourse the obvious extremes. If a person is suffering excruciating pain from a burn injury or major surgery, they obviously need to take advantage of something that will prevent their moment-to-moment existence from becoming intolerable torture. Ditto for psychological crisis. If someone is suicidal