The drug companies’ journey to search for a drug to cure Female Sexual Dysfunction started after the development of Viagra for men. The drug companies were not even aware of sexual dysfunction for females until this point. Despite not knowing whether FSD was a real disease, drug companies started developing a “cure” for this new phenomenon. The documentary had various sex experts and medical professionals describing the processes of developing drugs. There needs to be an actual disease before companies can create a new drug.
Coincidentally, drug companies have the power to define a disease the potentially want to make a drug for.
The filmmaker of the documentary, Liz Canner, started to suspect the pharmaceutical company was taking advantage of women when the results of Alista …show more content…
There is no real way to measure what is a normal sexual experience for women because sexual experiences are personal and every human body is different. The drug for FSD is more than just a company developing a new product, but a company advertising and marketing something normal as a disease for profit value. Tiefer was
extensively involved in the process of stopping various pharmaceutical drugs from meeting approval from the FDA.
The largest argument against a drug that “treats” FSD, is that no drug was effective. The various studies undergone have operated on trying to increase blood flow to the genital area, similar to the male Viagra pill. Another idea was the testosterone patch that increases blood flow and stimulates sexual desire. The various pills were no more effective than the placebos conducted in the study. The testosterone patch was only mildly effective when taken with an estrogen pill. Long-term use of both hormones over time posed valid, serious health risks.
There are so many doctors promoting female Viagra, but what consumers are unaware of is that pharmaceutical companies often pay doctors for advertising in support of these
Coincidentally, drug companies have the power to define a disease the potentially want to make a drug for.
The filmmaker of the documentary, Liz Canner, started to suspect the pharmaceutical company was taking advantage of women when the results of Alista …show more content…
There is no real way to measure what is a normal sexual experience for women because sexual experiences are personal and every human body is different. The drug for FSD is more than just a company developing a new product, but a company advertising and marketing something normal as a disease for profit value. Tiefer was
extensively involved in the process of stopping various pharmaceutical drugs from meeting approval from the FDA.
The largest argument against a drug that “treats” FSD, is that no drug was effective. The various studies undergone have operated on trying to increase blood flow to the genital area, similar to the male Viagra pill. Another idea was the testosterone patch that increases blood flow and stimulates sexual desire. The various pills were no more effective than the placebos conducted in the study. The testosterone patch was only mildly effective when taken with an estrogen pill. Long-term use of both hormones over time posed valid, serious health risks.
There are so many doctors promoting female Viagra, but what consumers are unaware of is that pharmaceutical companies often pay doctors for advertising in support of these