Viagra causes AIDS by making you take meth

mcc · January 2007

So, here's the theory:

1. Pfizer, makers of Viagra, once ran some advertisements referencing New Years Eve:

"What are you doing New Year's Eve?," said the advertisement, which appeared in national newspapers, showing a middle-aged man with greying hair.

2. Parties happen on New Years Eve.

3. Therefore, Pfizer is advertising Viagra as a "party drug".

4. Therefore, because Pfizer is advertising Viagra as a "party drug", people are taking Viagra not to cure clinical erectile disfunction, but to offset the temporary erectile disfunction that occurs as a side-effect of ecstacy, amphetamine and crystal meth.

5. Therefore, Viagra causes people to take ecstasy, amphetamine, and crystal meth.

6. Sometimes when people take ecstasy, amphetamine, and crystal meth, they get AIDS.

7. Therefore, Viagra causes AIDS.

8. Therefore, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is suing Pfizer "to stop advertising [viagra] 'in the reckless manner it has been doing' and require the company to undertake a public information campaign about the alleged risks of Viagra", because apparently Viagra advertisements cause AIDS and all.Are you following this so far?

Because I'm dead fucking lost.

Torso Boy · January 2007

What?

No.

Ain't No Sunshine · January 2007

If I had to guess, without reading anything more deeply into it, it's a poorly veiled attempt by an organization stuffed with health professionals to put pressure on pharmaceutical companies to stop direct-to-patient advertising. Talking with them doesn't work. Creating a fear of liability is another means of applying that pressure.

Casual Eddy · January 2007

A=B=C

then

A=C

If A=B, which is similar to C, which is related (slightly) to D, which is loosely based on E -

then

A=E

Right?

Feral · January 2007

This made my spirit die a little inside.

hambone · January 2007

mcc wrote:

So, here's the theory:
4. Therefore, because Pfizer is advertising Viagra as a "party drug", people are taking Viagra not to cure clinical erectile disfunction, but to offset the temporary erectile disfunction that occurs as a side-effect of ecstacy, amphetamine and crystal meth.

5. Therefore, Viagra causes people to take ecstasy, amphetamine, and crystal meth.

Not so much "causes to take" as "goes great with". The other ingredient to that recipe is unprotected gay sex.

That's probably where the AIDS part comes in.

mcc · January 2007

Casual Eddy wrote:

A=B=C

then

A=C

If A=B, which is similar to C, which is related (slightly) to D, which is loosely based on E -

then

A=E

Right?

∴

electricitylikesme · January 2007

Holy fucking hell.

Where do the Jews come in on this? I'll settle for Satan worshipping power-brokers as well.

Tiemler · January 2007

Clearly the dickheads at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation think the spam in their inboxes about "CHEEP VIAGRA!!!1 GO ALL NITE!" are coming from Pfizer.

They need a drug to stimulate blood flow between their damn ears.

mcdermott · January 2007

I've got five dollars that says that this will remain the biggest bucket of stupid I've seen all day.

I've also heard Viagra causes global warming and the Iraq war.

If I had to guess, without reading anything more deeply into it, it's a poorly veiled attempt by an organization stuffed with health professionals to put pressure on pharmaceutical companies to stop direct-to-patient advertising. Talking with them doesn't work. Creating a fear of liability is another means of applying that pressure.

And if the method of instilling that fear of liability also provides ample fuel to the "WTF litigation reform needed" camp, well so much the better for heath professionals I guess.

Thanatos · January 2007

The two things I think shouldn't be allowed to be advertised on TV are prescription medicines and lawyers.

I really think this is the wrong way to go about that, though.

Incenjucar · January 2007

The only real issue with viagra is that it's poorly-controlled.

Viagra weekends were all the rage at my conservative Christian mountain area high school.

Thanatos · January 2007

Incenjucar wrote:

The only real issue with viagra is that it's poorly-controlled.

Viagra weekends were all the rage at my conservative Christian mountain area high school.

Sounds like my kind of school. :winky:

Feral · January 2007

Thanatos wrote:

Incenjucar wrote:

The only real issue with viagra is that it's poorly-controlled.

Viagra weekends were all the rage at my conservative Christian mountain area high school.

Sounds like my kind of school. :winky:

Just wait until bremelanotide hits the market.
Seriously.

Incenjucar · January 2007

Thanatos wrote:

Incenjucar wrote:

The only real issue with viagra is that it's poorly-controlled.

Viagra weekends were all the rage at my conservative Christian mountain area high school.

Sounds like my kind of school. :winky:

Eh.

You should probably keep in mind that the women there were so uninteresting that I didn't obtain a genuine interest in the opposite sex until after I graduated; and I had to import from Australia.

Viagra weekends?

Because that's the only way to get it up in Hillbilliville.

Bedlam · January 2007

electricitylikesme wrote:

Holy fucking hell.

Where do the Jews come in on this? I'll settle for Satan worshipping power-brokers as well.

Well the jews organized 9/11 as a way to keep the black man down. But what the hook-noses didnt anticipate was that the towers were phallic in nature and when american males saw them collapse it spawned a rash wave of erectile disfuction nationwide. So all the limp dicks had to start taking meth to get over the depression of not being able to fuck anymore which led to the recreational combo of meth and viagra and very gay sexâ„¢

TroubledTom · January 2007

Their argument has a six degrees of Kevin Bacon quality to it. I would have just said, fewer erections leads to fewer cases of HIV; therefore, Pfizer needs to settle out of court for promoting erections, and give us some money for AIDS research.

Feral · January 2007

Ain't No Sunshine wrote:

If I had to guess, without reading anything more deeply into it, it's a poorly veiled attempt by an organization stuffed with health professionals to put pressure on pharmaceutical companies to stop direct-to-patient advertising. Talking with them doesn't work. Creating a fear of liability is another means of applying that pressure.

The more I think about it, the more this makes sense.

mcc · January 2007

Feral wrote:

Ain't No Sunshine wrote:

If I had to guess, without reading anything more deeply into it, it's a poorly veiled attempt by an organization stuffed with health professionals to put pressure on pharmaceutical companies to stop direct-to-patient advertising. Talking with them doesn't work. Creating a fear of liability is another means of applying that pressure.

The more I think about it, the more this makes sense.

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to think that he is on to something here re: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's mindset. The viagra advertising is particularly egregious as an example of behavior unbecoming a drug company-- arguably reasonably, considering the special nature of what Viagra is. So it's probably either what Ain't No Sunshine suggests, or else the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is thinking "well, SOMEBODY needs to pay to clean up the public health consequences of recreational Viagra use. Hey, let's try to make it be Pfizer!" But that doesn't make this situation much less bizarre.

Feral · January 2007

mcc wrote:

Feral wrote:

Ain't No Sunshine wrote:

If I had to guess, without reading anything more deeply into it, it's a poorly veiled attempt by an organization stuffed with health professionals to put pressure on pharmaceutical companies to stop direct-to-patient advertising. Talking with them doesn't work. Creating a fear of liability is another means of applying that pressure.

The more I think about it, the more this makes sense.

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to think that he is on to something here re: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's mindset. The viagra advertising is particularly egregious as an example of behavior unbecoming a drug company-- arguably reasonably, considering the special nature of what Viagra is. So it's probably either what Ain't No Sunshine suggests, or else the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is thinking "well, SOMEBODY needs to pay to clean up the public health consequences of recreational Viagra use. Hey, let's try to make it be Pfizer!" But that doesn't make this situation much less bizarre.

Viagra is a drug that allows people to have sex. People like to have sex on New Year's Eve. I don't see the content of this particular ad as any more offensive than any other DTC pharma campaign.
If there were a drug that treated anorexia, and they marketed it with an ad that said, "What are you doing this Thanksgiving?" I wouldn't blame the ad campaign for overeating. I'd find it in poor taste, but only in so much as a I find DTC pharma advertising overall in poor taste.

Edit: Part of the issue here is that erectile dysfunction drugs are the ugly stepchild of the pharma industry. ED is still not completely accepted as a real medical condition, except when it's a symptom of some cardiovascular or urological disorder of identifiable organic etiology. ED in and of itself is not taken terribly seriously, so there isn't a clear line, not even a hazy grey blur where a line should be, between medical use of Viagra and recreational use.

mcc · January 2007

Feral wrote:

Viagra is a drug that allows people to have sex. People like to have sex on New Year's Eve. I don't see the content of this particular ad as any more offensive than any other DTC pharma campaign.

When I made that comment, I was specifically thinking of Bob Dole.

Feral · January 2007

mcc wrote:

Feral wrote:

Viagra is a drug that allows people to have sex. People like to have sex on New Year's Eve. I don't see the content of this particular ad as any more offensive than any other DTC pharma campaign.

When I made that comment, I was specifically thinking of Bob Dole.

Now would be a good time for that

smiley that slowly gets bigger.

Target Practice · January 2007

Feral wrote:

If there were a drug that treated anorexia, and they marketed it with an ad that said, "What are you doing this Thanksgiving?" I wouldn't blame the ad campaign for overeating. I'd find it in poor taste, but only in so much as a I find DTC pharma advertising overall in poor taste.

Actually, that seems like an astonishingly good idea to me. After all, Thanksgiving is a major holiday which is largely centered around food. If you can't eat (or rather, have a neurotic aversion to eating), you can't enjoy the holiday and all the associated good things about it. Making somebody realize what they're missing out on is a good way to get them to do something about it.

*shrug*

Thanatos · January 2007

Feral wrote:

Edit: Part of the issue here is that erectile dysfunction drugs are the ugly stepchild of the pharma industry. ED is still not completely accepted as a real medical condition, except when it's a symptom of some cardiovascular or urological disorder of identifiable organic etiology. ED in and of itself is not taken terribly seriously, so there isn't a clear line, not even a hazy grey blur where a line should be, between medical use of Viagra and recreational use.

Assuming you don't have a heart condition, is there really anything wrong with using Viagra recreationally?

Quelreth · January 2007

mcc wrote:

Casual Eddy wrote:

A=B=C

then

A=C

If A=B, which is similar to C, which is related (slightly) to D, which is loosely based on E -

then

A=E

Right?

∴

GET DOWN IT'S A PREDATOR

randombattle · January 2007

Quelreth wrote:

mcc wrote:

Casual Eddy wrote:

A=B=C

then

A=C

If A=B, which is similar to C, which is related (slightly) to D, which is loosely based on E -

then

A=E

Right?

∴

GET DOWN IT'S A PREDATOR

An alien that travel billions of miles to hunt Ahnold make about as much sense as this argument.

Tastyfish · January 2007

Their argument has a six degrees of Kevin Bacon quality to it. I would have just said, fewer erections leads to fewer cases of HIV; therefore, Pfizer needs to settle out of court for promoting erections, and give us some money for AIDS research.

Pfizer does do AIDS research, they make drugs to combat it (which have recieved their own share of critism too), so you're saying Pfizer should settle out of court and give itself some money to apologise?

Unless this is all a cunning scheme to create a bigger market for their AIDS drugs...

Rook · January 2007

Thanatos wrote:

Feral wrote:

Edit: Part of the issue here is that erectile dysfunction drugs are the ugly stepchild of the pharma industry. ED is still not completely accepted as a real medical condition, except when it's a symptom of some cardiovascular or urological disorder of identifiable organic etiology. ED in and of itself is not taken terribly seriously, so there isn't a clear line, not even a hazy grey blur where a line should be, between medical use of Viagra and recreational use.

Assuming you don't have a heart condition, is there really anything wrong with using Viagra recreationally?

Yes. As with any drug on the market Viagra has been linked to a metric ton of side effects. Drug use with no real reason is a bit silly.

GoodOmens · January 2007

Thanatos wrote:

Feral wrote:

Edit: Part of the issue here is that erectile dysfunction drugs are the ugly stepchild of the pharma industry. ED is still not completely accepted as a real medical condition, except when it's a symptom of some cardiovascular or urological disorder of identifiable organic etiology. ED in and of itself is not taken terribly seriously, so there isn't a clear line, not even a hazy grey blur where a line should be, between medical use of Viagra and recreational use.

Assuming you don't have a heart condition, is there really anything wrong with using Viagra recreationally?

According to Wikipedia (not exactly a reliable medical source, but I'm lazy this morning):
Amongst sildenafil's serious adverse effects are: priapism, severe hypotension, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmias, sudden death, stroke and increased intraocular pressure

The impression I get is that all of these are possible even without heart trouble. Of course, based on the commercials, ED drugs in general have another, deeply troubling side effect; they cause old people to walk on the beach in the sunset, then lay down in seperate bathtubs on the sand and hold hands.

Won't someone please think of the children?

japan · January 2007

Why the hell are drug companies allowed to advertise prescription drugs to people who aren't medically qualified anyway?

The function of advertising is to make people want something, but prescription drugs are only made available if a person needs them. What they want has jack-all to do with it.

Given that UK doctors are inundated with people insisting "I have three of the five symptoms I read about on the internet, therefore I have [insert rare medical condition here]," I can only imagine that American patients do the same thing, with the addendum "So I need [absurdly expensive brand name drug]."

L*2*G*X · January 2007

japan wrote:

Why the hell are drug companies allowed to advertise prescription drugs to people who aren't medically qualified anyway?

The function of advertising is to make people want something, but prescription drugs are only made available if a person needs them. What they want has jack-all to do with it.

Given that UK doctors are inundated with people insisting "I have three of the five symptoms I read about on the internet, therefore I have [insert rare medical condition here]," I can only imagine that American patients do the same thing, with the addendum "So I need [absurdly expensive brand name drug]."

Why the hell are drugs made by companies, period.

Daedalus · January 2007

GoodOmens wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

Feral wrote:

Edit: Part of the issue here is that erectile dysfunction drugs are the ugly stepchild of the pharma industry. ED is still not completely accepted as a real medical condition, except when it's a symptom of some cardiovascular or urological disorder of identifiable organic etiology. ED in and of itself is not taken terribly seriously, so there isn't a clear line, not even a hazy grey blur where a line should be, between medical use of Viagra and recreational use.

Assuming you don't have a heart condition, is there really anything wrong with using Viagra recreationally?

According to Wikipedia (not exactly a reliable medical source, but I'm lazy this morning):
Amongst sildenafil's serious adverse effects are: priapism

I'm pretty sure that that would be the intended effect and not a side effect of "recreational sildenafil use".

Not saying I'd do it myself, of course.

Cantido · January 2007

Sounds like my kind of school.

Not where high schoolers need viagra. Or maybe its the teachers who use it to get their molest on.

nexuscrawler · January 2007

You'd think if people are taking Viagra combined with meth or Esctasy you be far more worried about thier fucking hearts exploding for a combination of the amphetimines and the increase of blood pressure from Viagra.

ViolentChemistry · January 2007

It's all part of the conspiracy by gay-dolphins to keep the Salvation Army away from Target so that they can't thwart their greater, eviler plans with their Salvation Spies and Salvation Tanks.

nexuscrawler · January 2007

ViolentChemistry wrote:

It's all part of the conspiracy by gay-dolphins to keep the Salvation Army away from Target so that they can't thwart their greater, eviler plans with their Salvation Spies and Salvation Tanks.

Work in a 9/11 conspiracy and you'll have entropykid topped.

SkyGheNe · January 2007

What's the big deal anyway? So a few people die. There'll be more like em on the way.

We make babies faster than teenagers consume alcohol. All is well.

GoodOmens · January 2007

The Warlock wrote:

GoodOmens wrote:

Amongst sildenafil's serious adverse effects are: priapism

I'm pretty sure that that would be the intended effect and not a side effect of "recreational sildenafil use".

Not saying I'd do it myself, of course.

Well, not really, given that priapism=unnaturally long-lasting boner=gangrene on your ween.

Capt Howdy · January 2007

Why wasn't herpes mentioned, they have drugs for that too. And they are an unwanted side effect of having unprotected sex with a dirty whore because your 59 and have a raging hard on, and she's only $20 for an hour, so why let this oppourtunity pass by. I mean shit, you're already close to death, And the Meth is making you think crazy anyways. Right? So this is just a logical next step, and really this is reason you took the meth and Viagra anyway, right? So fuck it, lets do this.

Uncontrollable hard on (Which you haven't had before Nixon was Pres) + Meth (Crazy Thinking) + a dirty, dirty $20 whore + unprotected sex = Aids and Herpes. Which means more money in the pockets of the drug companies, becuase you want to keep your hard-on, treat your Aids, and get those damn herpes to dissapear.

Makes sense really.

Irond Will · January 2007

GoodOmens wrote:

Well, not really, given that priapism=unnaturally long-lasting boner=gangrene on your ween.

gangween?

Knuckle Dragger · January 2007

L*2*G*X wrote:

japan wrote:

Why the hell are drug companies allowed to advertise prescription drugs to people who aren't medically qualified anyway?

The function of advertising is to make people want something, but prescription drugs are only made available if a person needs them. What they want has jack-all to do with it.

Given that UK doctors are inundated with people insisting "I have three of the five symptoms I read about on the internet, therefore I have [insert rare medical condition here]," I can only imagine that American patients do the same thing, with the addendum "So I need [absurdly expensive brand name drug]."

Why the hell are drugs made by companies, period.

Because you need money to develop new drugs?

Penny Arcade

Quick Links

Viagra causes AIDS by making you take meth

Posts