August 12, 2005
Disclaimers
Last night, while watching NFL, I saw an ad for CIALIS, one of the erectile dysfunction drugs. They had following disclaimers at the end of the ad:
CIALIS is for those who are healthy enough to have sexual activity. CIALIS does not protect a man or his partner from sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.
Saw the same STD-related disclaimer for the contraceptive pill, too. Are these really needed? Don't people have any common sense? The only reason for these statements to be in the advertisement is those DAMNED LAWYERS.
Posted by Parag at August 12, 2005 10:14 AM | TrackBack
yeah, it sure is a whole lot of money if you dont consider them, also the warnings of side effects on any drug includes almost every minor body ailment!!
Posted by: deven at August 12, 2005 10:42 AMOh well the first disclaimer i think is valid.. i mean come on its the boner pill.. everybody wants to do it no matter what the age and health status is.. i read yesterday that pfizer is not going to advertize there boner pill ads during superball anymore.. hhehehe may be that corrupts the minds of the young people watching the football game as its a family show..
Posted by: sujit at August 12, 2005 11:58 AMGee. Last I checked the U.S. with all of its lawyers was faring supremely better than say, India, Russia or other places with far fewer lawyers, both in terms of basic public health (regulated by lawyers), basic literacy (regulated by lawyers), civil rights (regulated by lawyers), property rights (regulated by lawyers), and the latitude to amass personal wealth (regulated by lawyers).
This must be more of that "whiny crap" that other poster was talking about...
Posted by: Price at August 18, 2005 11:33 PMPrice: If you really think that lawyers are protecting the way of life in USA through regulation, you need to get your head examined.
Posted by: Parag at September 8, 2005 04:06 PM
