<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: consumer advertising</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'consumer advertising'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22consumer+advertising%22&t=%22consumer+advertising%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:54:30 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Europe To Revise ‘Advertising In Disguise’ Proposal</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5069818&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FrIaNzGppPTA%2F</link>
            <description>Three years after making a proposal that would have allowed drugmakers to publish product information in consumer newspapers and magazines, the European Commission is going back to the proverbial drawing board and plans to issue a new proposal this fall, an EC spokesman writes us. The move comes after its initial effort was widely criticized and rejected by the European Parliament.
&amp;#8220;The European Commission will revise the proposals to clarify and harmonize the rules in what companies can and can’t say to patients,&amp;#8221; Peter Arlett, who heads pharmacovigilance and risk management at the European Medicines Agency, tells Bloomberg News. The EMA, he adds, recently received a letter from the EC about its intention to revise its proposal.
The original EC effort, which was unveiled in ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5069818</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:04:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5069818</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharmalot… Pharmalittle… Good Morning</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5069822&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F8WFD_ZbuCB4%2F</link>
            <description>Hello, everyone, and top of the morning to you. Another shiny day is unfolding on the Pharmalot corporate campus, where we have much to do. You know, the drill - reading documents, making phone calls, finding interesting tidbits. To prepare, yes, we are downing that mandatory cup of stimulation - our flavor today is Wild Mountain Blueberry. So please join us. Meanwhile, here are some items from around the world. Hope your day goes well and stay in touch&amp;#8230;
Pfizer&amp;#8217;s Zyvox and Antidepressants May Cause Fatal Reaction (Bloomberg News)
Valeant Approaches Swedish Drugmaker Mada About A Takeover (Bloomberg News)
Abortion Pill Given Via Telemedicine Is Safe And Effective (Reuters)
Vertex Says Hepatitis C Drug Combo Works (Reuters)
Naeja Pharmaceutical R&amp;#038;D Facility Catches Fire (Cal...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5069822</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:41:22 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5069822</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The FDA Will Study DTC On Branded Web Sites</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4759038&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FuO-4Fn87I3M%2F</link>
            <description>File this under &amp;#8216;better late than never&amp;#8230;sort of.&amp;#8217; Several years after the Internet took off and branded product web sites began appearing, the FDA is now getting ready to study the extent to which risk and benefit information is presented and digested. The details are expected to appear tomorrow in the Federal Register.
&amp;#8220;This research is relevant to current policy questions and debate and will complement qualitative research we plan to conduct on issues surrounding social media. The original regulations that presently determine FDA’s position on DTC promotion were written at a time when the available media for DTC promotion were print and broadcast, and the primary audience was health care professionals. This dynamic is shifting, and evidence is needed to support ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4759038</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:34:57 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4759038</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Those Non-Branded DTC Ads Seem To Be Working</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4560593&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2Fa3XeUYxmKn0%2F</link>
            <description>More than a decade has past since direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs has become a fixture of American culture. More recently, though, the so-called unbranded ad - which discusses diseases instead of specific meds - has become equally ubiquitous. But how do these resonate with consumers? 
A new study finds that non-branded ads compared favorably with conventional ads for specific branded meds. A total of 437 people were divided into two groups and then four subgroups, who were shown branded or non-branded ads for either allergy meds or oral contraceptives (drug and company names were fictitious in order to reduce bias). They were asked 16 questions to measure involvement and attitude toward the ads, the companies and the pharmaceutical industry.
The upshot? Not surprisingl...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4560593</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:54:11 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4560593</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bills Would End DTC Tax Break &amp; Allow Importation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4507582&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2Fjhk8uLvM9QY%2F</link>
            <description>Call it congressional deja vu. Last week, a pair of bills that previously went nowhere were again introduced and both take aim at brand-name drugmakers. The first, called the Say No to Drug Ads Act, would eliminate tax breaks for direct-to-consumer advertising and was introduced by Jerry Nadler, a Democratic Congressman from New York who failed to enlist any co-sponsors.
The rationale for his repeat effort is that DTC ads allow drugmakers to &amp;#8220;keep prices artificially high, steering consumers – and physicians – away from generics&amp;#8230;It’s bad enough that TV drug ads mislead consumers and tout benefits of high-priced drugs without properly conveying the risks, but the drug companies don’t need extra subsidies to do so,&amp;#8221; he says in a statement. (You can read the bill her...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4507582</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:27:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4507582</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Who Said DTC Advertising Had To Be Tasteful?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4305102&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FCxc41W3S1Z8%2F</link>
            <description>And so it has come to this: a direct-to-consumer ad for Rapaflo, which is used to treat symptoms of an enlarged prostate, including urinary frequency and urgency, is being promoted in a magazine ad that shows a man peeing by the side of the road. 
Certainly, the sudden need to pee is a universal phenomenon and relieving oneself in unusual venues is hardly unique (although there can be consequences: three of The Rolling Stones were arrested for doing so on the wall of a London gas station in 1965). And given that the photo suggests there is no bathroom in the desert, the poor fellow can hardly be blamed for splashing the dusty roadside (perhaps he forgot to bring a handy-dandy bottle for such occasions?)
In running the ad, Watson Pharmaceuticals, which markets Rapaflo, and its ad agency, mo...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4305102</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 13:57:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4305102</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Europe Scraps ‘Advertising In Disguise’ Proposal</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4023134&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FkGRuStkhCj0%2F</link>
            <description>The European Parliament has rejected a controversial proposal by the European Commission that would have allowed drugmakers to publish product info in consumer newspapers and magazines. The effort was designed to provide more reliable medical advice at a time when the Internet allows widespread dissemination of questionable info, since drugmakers are prevented from circulating data.
However, the proposal, which was first introduced nearly two years ago, was criticized for weakening existing EU restrictions on contacts between drugmakers and patients, including a strict ban on US-style direct-to-consumer advertising. Some critics argued the proposal, which was branded &amp;#8216;advertising in disguise,&amp;#8217; would encourage the inappropriate use of medicines. A ban on DTC advertising on broad...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4023134</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:12:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4023134</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Online Spending Is Growing Very Slowly</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3911866&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FhVsGkz31etk%2F</link>
            <description>For all the talk about embracing the Internet and social media, the amount of healthcare and pharma ad spending online will remain steady at about 4 percent of the total in 2014, even as the annual projected increases in such spending climb significantly. This year, for instance, online ad spending is expected to rise 10.6 percent, to $1 billion, and grow by 9.3 percent in 2014 to $1.52 billion.
Why is the total online pharma and healthcare spending - which includes both direct-to-consumer ads for prescription meds and over-the-counter salves - not going to account for very much? There are several reasons, according to eMarketer, which issued the report. For one thing, the FDA has not yet issued clear guidelines for search and social media, although these may be released later this year.
F...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3911866</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:16:25 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3911866</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The FDA Could Receive How Much Federal Funding?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3718696&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FoOozbSbd4XU%2F</link>
            <description>The FDA is always under the gun, and both critics and supporters often point to a lack of funding. So how much money might be headed its way in fiscal 2011? Yesterday, the House Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee did a mark up and suggested $2.57 billion in funding – $55 million above the budget request. This is discretionary spending.
Overall, the agency would have $3.8 billion for oversight - roughly $214 million above last year&amp;#8217;s bill - when including $1.2 billion in user fees, notes Rosa DeLauro, the Connecticut Democrat who chairs the subcommittee, who has been harping on drug safety lately. [EDITORS' NOTE: Yes, there was a math problem earlier and we have clarified the numbers]. So the proposal include...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3718696</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:49:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3718696</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>DTC Ads Not Biggest Driver Of Drug Spending: Study</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3570062&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FLSXLDw7UnbA%2F</link>
            <description>If you enjoy discussions of price elasticity, do we have a paper for you. Economic simulations suggest that the expansion in broadcast DTC ads may have been responsible for 19 percent of the overall growth in prescription drug spending from 1994 to 2005, with over two-thirds driven by increased demand due to expanded advertising and the remainder due to higher prices. All this is according to a new paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (purchase required).
But while DTC advertising was deemed significant, the authors conclude &amp;#8220;it has not been the primary force driving the growth in overall prescription drug expenditures.&amp;#8221; [UPDATE: Curiously, the conclusion seems to contradict the bottom-line findings.] The study examined the separate effects of broadcast a...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3570062</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 12:53:54 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3570062</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Digital marketing shift to professional pharma</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3560501&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=38374&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FePharmaSummit%2F%7E3%2F6zL4Ns4fJbo%2Fdigital-marketing-shift-to-professional.html</link>
            <description>(Source: ePharma Summit)</description>
            <author>ePharma Summit</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3560501</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 20:49:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3560501</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>FDA To Docs: Tell Us About ‘Bad Drug Ads’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3556378&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FfAGgDJ3OVfM%2F</link>
            <description>If you&amp;#8217;re a doctor, the FDA wants your help in identifying &amp;#8216;bad&amp;#8217; advertisements for prescription drugs. Seriously. The agency is calling it&amp;#8217;s new &amp;#8216;Bad Ad&amp;#8217; program an educational outreach effort and, not surprisingly, it&amp;#8217;s being run by DDMAC, the agency’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications, which issues all those warning letters and violations.
The goal of the program is to &amp;#8220;help health care providers recognize misleading prescription drug promotion and provide them with an easy way to report this activity to the agency,” DDMAC director Tom Abrams says in a statement. Usually, the FDA finds &amp;#8216;bad ads&amp;#8217; by reviewing promotional materials submitted for agency review, fielding complaints (often one company s...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3556378</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 17:26:52 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3556378</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>DTC Ad Spending Is On The Rise Again</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3067310&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F-x7gV8k38Yw%2F</link>
            <description>Direct-to-consumer spending was declining for the last few quarters, but came bounding back in the recently ended third quarter - rising 15 percent to $1.16 billion, according to DTC Perspectives, a consulting firm, which cited data from TNS Media Intelligence. 
The increase apparently marks the first quarterly gain in DTC spending in nearly two years and, interestingly, contrasts significantly with the spending trend earlier this year, when DTC advertising slumped 6.4 percent between January and June, compared with the same period a year ago. 
Not surprisingly, spending on the Internet rose the most, the firm reports, more than tripling between January and September to $221 million (display ads only). And more ads were placed in newspapers, which showed a 25 percent gain to $104 million d...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3067310</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:09:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3067310</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharma Spending On Detailing Is Up: CBO</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3056885&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FLdYhC8jK_Cg%2F</link>
            <description>A new report from the Congressional Budget Office examines promotional spending by drugmakers, including an analysis of direct-to-consumer advertising in recent years. For those in the know, there are probably few surprises. Nonetheless, the summary is interesting and worth noting. Here are some highlights&amp;#8230;
- In 2008, spending on DTC ads totaled $4.7 billion, nearly one-fourth of industry spending for all promotional activities. Promotional spending, which includes detailing, ad journals, meetings and DTC ads, was $20.5 billion last year, or 10.8 percent of US sales last year. The CBO, which says spending was typically between 10 percent and 12 percent since the early 1990&amp;#8217;s, cited sales data reported by PhRMA, which presumably relies on annual reports. DTC advertising has decl...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3056885</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:57:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3056885</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ineffective Plavix Ads Cost US Taxpayers A Bundle</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3023411&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2Fx7OkCwU8iGw%2F</link>
            <description>The price Medicaid paid for the bloodthinner rose 12 percent “immediately” after direct-to-consumer ads began in 2001, and those higher costs added $207 million to Medicaid spending in 27 states during the next four years, even as prescriptions rose at a constant rate, according to a study in the Archives of Internal Medicine. 
Pharmacy data from Medicaid programs in 27 states revealed that Plavix sales rose steadily since it was launched and the trend remained constant between 1999 and 2005. But the cost to Medicaid rose by $207 million after ads started running in 2002. And guess what? The price of Plavix was hiked price 12 percent, or 40 cents a pill, when a $350 million ad campaign began.
“Payers and policy makers should be very concerned about the potential for drug advertising ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3023411</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:25:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3023411</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>So Maybe DTC Ads Aren’t Worth It, After All</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2977569&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FAJal4KDWV30%2F</link>
            <description>Judging by a recent survey, that may seem to be the case. Direct-to-consumer ads are mentioned mostly by docs to increase patient acceptance for a medicine that&amp;#8217;s already been chosen. But unaided - or spontaneous - mention by patients or actual patient requests for a specific med is a rare phenomenon, according to the survey by Verilogue. 
The firm tracked brand requests coupled with a reference to specific ad campaigns across 12,500 doctor-patient conversations from 2008 and covered 20 disease states and 46 different branded prescription drugs. Overall, DTC &amp;#8216;pull-through&amp;#8217; in conversations in a doc&amp;#8217;s office is low - just 3 percent - and specific patient requests for advertised med are even lower - .002 percent.
Significantly, the most frequently pulled-through brand...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2977569</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:20:15 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2977569</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Where, Oh Where, Have All Those Ads Gone?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2027778&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F479674552%2F</link>
            <description>Let&amp;#8217;s not overstate the case - advertising on pharmaceuticals has not disappeared. But there do appear to be fewer ads. Spending fell 6 percent in the first eight months of the year, to $3.2 billion, according to TNS Media Intelligence, and that followed a decline of 3 percent for all of last year to $5.3 billion, Dow Jones reports.
Why? Much of the decline came from a downturn in so-called non-branded advertising, including corporate promotion messages and disease-awareness spots, TNS tells the news service. Another factor appears to be the drop in FDA approvals of new drugs is another factor, since spending on new brands fell 7 percent last year while spending on established brands rose 5 percent.
Before last year, direct-to-consumer advertising was generally increasing and peaked ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2027778</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:34:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2027778</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Waxman Renews Call To Ban Ads For New Drugs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2027783&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F479449838%2F</link>
            <description>Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who will soon head the House Energy &amp;#038; Commerce Commitee, wants to give the FDA the power to ban direct-to-consumer ads when a new medicine first reaches the market and risks are not fully known, Reuters writes. The idea is one of several he hopes to pursue come January after a new Congress convenes, he told an industry conference yesterday.
&amp;#8220;It is in these first few years of a drug&amp;#8217;s life that drug companies often aggressively market their products and engage in direct-to-consumer advertising. This increases the number of consumers exposed to safety risks of new products long before those risks are truly understood,&amp;#8221; Waxman said at a conference sponsored by The Prescription Project, a group critical of industry marketing.
He supp...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2027783</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:34:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2027783</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Europe Drops Plan To Ban Parallel Trade</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2021731&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F478395552%2F</link>
            <description>A planned reform of the European Union&amp;#8217;s pharmaceutical industry no longer contains a ban on the repackaging of prescription drugs for resale, according to a draft document obtained by Reuters. Parallel traders, who buy and resell prescription drugs to exploit price differences among EU states, had faced a repackaging ban in an earlier version of the reform due for formal adoption this week. 
EU Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen faced pressure from parallel traders who argued a ban would have wiped them out, because they would have to repackage drugs so that explanatory leaflets to patients are in the right language. &amp;#8220;Instead, a new article&amp;#8230;has been added to allow manufacturing authorization holders such as parallel traders to replace safety features under strict co...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2021731</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 12:09:29 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2021731</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>BLOGSCAN - Direct-to-Consumer Device Advertising on YouTube Sans Adverse Effects Information</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2017516&amp;cid=t_281911_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F12%2Fblogscan-direct-to-consumer-device.html</link>
            <description>On the PostScript blog, the Prescription Project announced the discovery of direct-to-consumer marketing videos released on YouTube by three device companies. The video from Abbott advertised the XIENCE-V drug eluting stent. That from Medtronic advertised the Prestige cervical disc. That from Stryker advertised its Cormet hip resurfacing technology. Apparently none of these brave new advertisements bothered to put in the discussion about adverse effects mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The new media obviously presents new opportunities for marketing, including marketing that gets around rules usually applied in other media. Kudos to the Prescription Project for blowing the whistle on this one.According to this post, soon after the three companies pulled these ads. The...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2017516</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:15:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2017516</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Should TV Ads Carry Toll-Free Numbers?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1991562&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F465356000%2F</link>
            <description>The FDA plans to interview more than 1,500 consumers to decide whether DTC TV ads should urge patients to report side effects, the Associated Press writes. However, some critics argue the toll-free number could distract viewers from other important safety info about prescription drugs.
Print ads already include contact info for the FDA, as required by a law passed last September. The legislation ordered the FDA to report to Congress by late March whether that info should also be mandatory for TV ads. But the agency requested more time to complete its work and is expected to soon begin a formal study - more than a year after the safety legislation was signed into law (back story here and here).
The agency has now made plans for a large-scale study to assess whether adding instructions about...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1991562</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:14:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1991562</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>EU Plan Gives Pharma Direct Access To Patients</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1852740&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F410212798%2F</link>
            <description>The proposal was endorsed by the European Union&amp;#8217;s Pharmaceutical Forum as part of an effort to provide more reliable medical advice at a time when the Internet allows widespread dissemination of questionable info, even as companies that develop drugs are prevented from circulating data.
However, the recommendation weakens current EU restrictions on contacts between drugmakers and patients, including a strict ban on US-style direct-to-consumer advertising, which critics say encourages the inappropriate use of medicines, The Financial Times writes.
The forum statement echoes draft legislation set to be published this month by Gunther Verheugen, the EU’s enterprise and industry commissioner, which would ease marketing rules and allow drugmakers to communicate to the general public in ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1852740</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:33:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1852740</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Congressman Warns DTC Tax Break May Get Axed</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1851211&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F409395623%2F</link>
            <description>Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat, warned advertising industry leaders that the business-tax deduction for DTC spending could be taken away in 2009 tax legislation, according to DTC Perspectives. 
In a recent meeting with the government affairs committee of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the newsletter writes Emanuel presented two options for pharma in new tax legislation: retain the tax credit for R&amp;#038;D spending, or keep the business expense deduction for DTC ads - but not both.
“He said this without any tinge of satire, so you have to accept him at his word,” one ad industry advocate familiar with the meeting tells DTC Perspectives, which claims an average drugmaker spends roughly 10 times more on R&amp;#038;D each year than on consumer promotion (although we recal...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1851211</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:26:22 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1851211</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Some Employers Think About Drug Prices</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1833426&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F402870703%2F</link>
            <description>Ask a human resource exec or benefit managers why drug prices keep rising and you&amp;#8217;re likely to hear them blame direct-to-consumer advertising. And why not? The ads are not only ubiquitous, but promote meds that are, generally, expensive.
This year, however, a survey of 100 companies with at least 1,000 employees finds that DTC advertising is generating fewer complaints. This year, 33 percent of the managers, vp&amp;#8217;s and directors queried blamed ads for the higher prices their employee benefit plans paid for meds. That&amp;#8217;s down from 45.5 percent in 2007 and 36 percent in 2006.
Instead, the blame is shifting to manufacturer price hikes - 13.4 percent cited this as a problem, compared with 6.9 percent last year, according to Arxcel, a pharmacy benefits consultant that sponsored t...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1833426</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:06:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1833426</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Senate Holds Hearing On DTC Ads For Devices</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1802930&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F394684642%2F</link>
            <description>Normally, when you hear someone complain about direct-to-consumer advertising, it has to do with prescription drugs. But the Senate Special Committee on Aging believes there are just as many troubling issues when it comes to DTC ads for medical devices. So a hearing is scheduled for Wedneday morning.
The committee’s chairman, Herb Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin, tells The New York Times he&amp;#8217;s holding the hearing because he believes the FDA may have to increase scrutiny of device ads, much as it has done for drugs. &amp;#8220;The medical device industry is just beginning to get into the game,” he says.
DTC ads on TV and on the Internet amounted to $193 million last year, a small fraction of spending on drug ads, according to TNS Media Intelligence, a consulting firm, the paper writes....</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1802930</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:23:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1802930</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>BLOGSCAN - FDA Hires Pharmaceutical Marketing Agency to Educate Consumers About Drug Advertising</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1794368&amp;cid=t_281911_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F09%2Fblogscan-fda-hires-pharmaceutical.html</link>
            <description>On the GoozNews blog, Merrill Goozner posted about how the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set up a program to educate consumers about direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising. It seems that the organization the FDA hired for this purpose is nominally a not-for-profit, but not registered as such with the federal government, and is run by the president of a pharmaceutical marketing agency. The not-for-profit was funded mainly by the marketing agency, and its leadership all have connections with pharma. Sometimes, you just can't make this stuff up. Meanwhile, on the PostScript blog, this post assessed the content of the web-site provided by this program. The site is, shall we say, not terribly skeptical about how the pharmaceutical industry advertises drugs. But what did we expect, given w...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1794368</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:49:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1794368</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>FDA Tapped Pharma Consultant For DTC Web Site</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1798526&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F393208721%2F</link>
            <description>The agency hired a non-profit that is run by Michael Shaw, an advertising consultant to the pharmaceutical industry, to help design a new consumer campaign about direct-to-consumer advertising, Integrity in Science Watch reports. (Here is the press release).
The FDA’s new website, “Be Smart About Prescription Drug Advertising: A Guide for Consumers,” was developed by EthicAd, a non-profit based in Atlanta that, on its web site, claims to be independent and does not accept industry funding. However, ISW notes the organization is based in the same offices as Shaw Science Partners. The client list includes many familiar big pharma names and the site takes credit for helping to launch numerous drugs, including Viagra, Celebrex, Zoloft, Abilify and Avastin. 
The new FDA, which claims DTC ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1798526</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:37:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1798526</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The New Lipitor Ad: Look, Ma, No Celebrities!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1760171&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F381287167%2F</link>
            <description>File this under fanfare for the common man. Bruised and battered by the controversy over ads featuring Robert Jarvik - known for inventing the artificial heart but not for writing prescriptions - Pfizer today debuts a new ad featuring someone with a lower profile. In this case, it&amp;#8217;s John Erlendson, a 58-year-old talent agent who suffered a heart attack and hadn&amp;#8217;t been taking a cholesterol pill.
&amp;#8220;When we did testing with consumers, what we found out was John really resonated with them,&amp;#8221; Jim Sage, senior director and leader of the Lipitor marketing team at Pfizer, tells The Wall Street Journal. He declined to say how much is being spent on the new campaign but it will have a wide presence on TV and in print. &amp;#8220;This ad is going to run for a while on a national bas...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1760171</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:34:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1760171</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Drugmakers: Moratorium On Advertising New Drugs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1522434&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F313428042%2F</link>
            <description>Under pressure from Washington, Merck, Johnson &amp;#038; Johnson and Pfizer are agreeing a six-month moratorium on advertising new drugs to consumers and will limit how docs are used in their ads, Advertising Age reports. 
The changes were unveiled today in letters they sent the House Energy and Commerce Committee responding to a request from committee the chairman John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and, Bart Stupak, another Michigan Democrat who heads the committee&amp;#8217;s oversight and investigations panel, according to the mag. 
Dingell and Stupak had wanted a two-year voluntary moratorium on advertising new meds to consumers, and possibly even longer in the case of drugs for which not all studies have been completed, Ad Age ads. The lawmakers also asked the drugmakers to limit the use of d...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1522434</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:06:52 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1522434</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharma Lobbies DC For Off-Label Rights</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1382619&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F272818314%2F</link>
            <description>Drugmakers are descending on Washington to protect their freedom to advertise meds directly to consumers and push for looser government restrictions on off-label promotion, The Wall Street Journal writes.
Ten drugmakers, including Pfizer, Bayer Corp, AstraZeneca and Johnson &amp;#038; Johnson have formed a coalition to push for looser off-label restrictions and will submit their arguments today to the FDA, which has been soliciting comments on its proposed off-label promotion guidelines. They are represented by former FDA Chief Counsel Daniel Troy, who is working with public-relations giant APCO Worldwide. Patient-advocacy organizations such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Organization for Rare Disorders are also members.
The new coalition supports the ability of dr...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1382619</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:12:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1382619</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Rower Mis-Impresses? - Pfizer Ends its Lipitor Advertising Campaign</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1269561&amp;cid=t_281911_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F02%2Frower-mis-impresses-pfizer-ends-its.html</link>
            <description>We posted last week about misleading aspects of the Pfizer Inc US television advertising campaign for Lipitor (atorvastatin), some of which were recently discovered by NY Times reporter Stephanie Saul. The ads centered on Dr Robert Jarvik. They touted him as a physician with great expertise about the heart. However, although Dr Jarvik does have an MD, he never was an intern or resident, never got a medical license, and never practiced medicine. Dr Jarvik's career is that of an inventor and biomedical engineer. Furthermore, the ads gave the impression that Dr Jarvik is tremendously fit, showing him jogging and apparently rowing a racing scull. However, a body double, not Dr Jarvik, was rowing the boat.This week, Pfizer cancelled the advertising campaign. As reported again in the NY Times by...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1269561</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:36:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1269561</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Rowing Aground - More on Dr Jarvik's Misleading Advertisements</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1216479&amp;cid=t_281911_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F02%2Frowing-aground-more-on-dr-jarviks.html</link>
            <description>On US television, the ads for Lipitor (atorvastatin, by Pfizer) featuring Dr Robert Jarvik are hard to avoid. In them, Dr Jarvik introduces himself as &quot;Doctor,&quot; attests to the years has spent &quot;studying the heart,&quot; attests to the value of Lipitor, which he takes himself, and is shown jogging, and apparently rowing a racing scull. Concerns about these ads yhave now hit the big time. Stephanie Saul reported in the New York Times that not only, as we briefly mentioned, is Dr Jarvik &quot;not a cardiologist and is not licensed to practice medicine,&quot; but that he does not know how to row. The images that seemed to be of Jarvik rowing the boat were combined from videos of a &quot;body double,&quot; and of Dr Jarvik in a boat held fixed to a platform.Why is this a serious matter? Pharmaceutical companies contend ...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1216479</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:53:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1216479</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Will FDA TV Ad Reviews Face Court Challenges?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1027237&amp;cid=t_281911_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F184840385%2F</link>
            <description>That&amp;#8217;s what some wags are saying about the provision in the recently enacted FDA Amendments Act. One item in the legislation allows the FDA to delay a TV ad while agency staffers conduct a review and decide whether anything must be changed, such as disclosing serious risks.
This language was inserted in favor tougher wording that, originally, would have given the FDA authority to block a drugmaker from advertising a med that carried serious safety concerns. But that was removed over constitutional concerns. Now, though, some lawyers tell FDALegislativeWatch that the softer provision may also have trouble passing constitutional muster. The FDA&amp;#8217;s authority &amp;#8220;likely will be tested at some point in the courts,&amp;#8221; David Ogden of WilmerHale tells the newsletter (subscription...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1027237</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:13:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1027237</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>&quot;Yee Hah&quot; Direct to Consumer Advertising</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=877510&amp;cid=t_281911_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F09%2Fyee-hah-direct-to-consumer-advertising.html</link>
            <description>An editorialist at The Day (New London, CT) had some choice comments about the current direct to consumer (DCT) advertising of Viagra (sildenafil), the erectile dysfunction (ED) drug made by Pfizer Inc.Pfizer Inc. denies it, but it sure appears it no longer markets Viagra as simply medicine, but encourages recreational use by projecting an aphrodisiac-like image.In 2005 Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies peddling male impotence drugs toned down their advertising after the Food and Drug Administration criticized sexually-suggestive commercials that paid little attention to the medical problem the drugs are intended to address — erectile dysfunction (ED).Pfizer, which had run TV advertisements of men growing blue devilish horns when the Viagra logo appeared, turned in late 2005 to c...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=877510</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:45:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">877510</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>BLOGSCAN - Even European Pharma Execs Don't Like DTC Advertising</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=740425&amp;cid=t_281911_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fblogscan-even-european-pharma-execs.html</link>
            <description>On BrandweekNRX is a fascinating post on the disdain European pharmaceutical executives have for direct to patient (DCT) pharma advertising. On UK executive even said &quot;that American drug advertising was regarded as so excessive in the UK that it had actually nixed the chances of UK drug companies being allowed to conduct similar promotions.&quot;And the post started with a link to Question Authority with Dr Peter Rost which cited a commentary in a left-wing Swedish newspaper in which a Swedish Pfizer executive called DTC advertising &quot;a bad model for Sweden.&quot;So why do American pharma executives swear by DTC advertising? Are they dumber than their European counterparts, or are American consumers more gullible than European consumers? (Source: Health Care Renewal)</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=740425</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:39:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">740425</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Educational DTC Drug Advertisements: &quot;Minky  Viagra Noni Noni Boo-Boo Plats&quot;</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=582755&amp;cid=t_281911_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F04%2Feducational-dtc-drug-advertisements.html</link>
            <description>We have posted before (most recently here) about the need to be very skeptical about direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. On the other hand, DTC proponents often claim that the ads are valuable because they are educational. However, Alex Berenson just reported in the New York Times on television ads by Pfizer Inc for Viagra now being aired in Canada,The ads feature middle-aged men and women talking in a made-up language, save for one word.'Viagra spanglecheff?' says a man to a friend at a bowling alley.'Spanglecheff?' his friend asks.'Minky Viagra noni noni boo-boo plats!' the first man replies, with a grin that suggests he is not talking about the drug’s side effects. The ads end with the slogan, 'The International Language of Viagra.'I cannot wait to hear from Pfizer ho...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=582755</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:57:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">582755</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Butterfly Runs Into Flak: Critically Analyzing Lunesta's Television Ad</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=547256&amp;cid=t_281911_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F04%2Fbutterfly-runs-into-flak-critically.html</link>
            <description>National Public Radio's show &quot;All Things Considered&quot; ran a segment last week explaining how direct to consumer (DTC) advertising can make drugs appear better than they may really be.The show focused on a single television advertisement (with the butterfly) for Lunesta (eszopiclone) marketed by Sepracor for insomnia. The show focused first on the psychology of advertising design, pointing out the following features:Using Images to &quot;Sell You a Feeling&quot; - The advertisement shows a lovely woman waking up after an apparently restful sleep produced by Lunesta. A former TV producer commented, &quot;and when she wakes up, she's just gorgeous. She sits right up and stretches and looks great. Who wouldn't want that?&quot; Thus, &quot;you remember what you feel longer than what you know.&quot; So the image of restful sl...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=547256</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:25:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">547256</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

