Truvada Casting Call

[Inchlingblue]

Hey

I came across some information re: a casting call for a Truvada commercial/ad. I don't have anything to do with it, I'm just passing on the information in case anyone is interested. Looks like they're looking for one black female and one non-black male.

*CASTING FOR TRUVADA*

We are doing a casting for Truvada. We’re looking for *Men* and *Women*.
Please look closely at the specs below, you are *ONLY *eligible for this
casting if you fit *ALL* the specs. Note, you *MUST* be currently taking
Truvada.

*WOMEN:* You must have been on thymidine anolog + PI during
pregnancy and delivered a healthy HIV- child, then switched to Truvada.

If you fit the specs for either Patient 1 or 2 please reply confirming you fit the specs along with the following information. Also make sure you send a recent photo taken within the last 3 months in a JPEG
format. Make sure the shot is the highest resolution possible and clear!
No sunglasses or hats, natural lighting seems to be best.

*PLEASE REPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING INFO IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED*

Name: *
*

* *

Age: * * Ethnicity: *
*

City:*
*
State: * *

Cell #: * *

Are you taking Truvada?

* *

When did you start taking Truvada? Month:*
* Year: * *

Have you done any prior work for HIV print or commercial?

If so, When? * * What
Product? *
*

* *

*SPECS*

* *

*PATIENT PROFILE #1: *African American female, In her 30’s

· Was on a thymidine analog + PI during pregnancy. Delivered a
healthy HIV negative child

· Stable on thymidine analog +PI post-partum, changed to TRUVADA
because she wanted a simpler regime

· Viral load is undetectable and CD4 Cell count is stable

· No visual signs of lipoatrophy

· Preferably on TVD for 3 years

* *

*PATIENT PROFILE #2:* Male (Of any race, *EXCEPT* African American)

· Treatment-naï ve patient with high baseline viral load (>100,000)

· Started with TRUVADA and is now undetectable

· Has been on TVD for 3 years

Contact:

* Lilly Colón*

**

*Lilly@TheMorganAge ncy.com*

www.themorganagency.com

[mecch]

dramatic reading. 

[Basquo]

· No visual signs of lipoatrophy


*PATIENT PROFILE #2:* Male (Of any race, *EXCEPT* African American)

I appreciate Lilly's trying to have authentic models, but take exception to the requirements I've quoted.

[decayingsinner]

I would totally do it, but I haven't been on Truvada for 3 years yet.

[AlanBama]

Wonder how they'd like a photo of what came out of me WHILE I was taking the Truvada?  That should make a pretty picture for them......

Of course they don't want models with lipoatrophy!   Ssshhh.....we can't let anyone know that AIDS isn't a "pretty disease".....

 

[mjmel]

Wonder how they'd like a photo of what came out of me WHILE I was taking the Truvada?  That should make a pretty picture for them......

Of course they don't want models with lipoatrophy!   Ssshhh.....we can't let anyone know that AIDS isn't a "pretty disease".....

 

 
that post made me chuckle as i share the same sentiments.

recently, i was musing at the faces on the upper right corner of this uploaded page and although i am glad some look so full-faced--for the most part, they are not majority; not us. a Hollywood version???

Mike

[aztecan]

Wonder how they'd like a photo of what came out of me WHILE I was taking the Truvada?  That should make a pretty picture for them......

Of course they don't want models with lipoatrophy!   Ssshhh.....we can't let anyone know that AIDS isn't a "pretty disease".....

 

Oh, but Alan honey, it is a pretty disease! I have a pretty belly, I have a pretty humpette, I have a pretty horsecollar neck, but, I have never taken Truvada.

I am really getting sick of Madison Avenue's vision of living with HIV.

[Miss Philicia]

I'm pondering doing large scale full color nude portraits of Lipo Kids with Olan Mills backdrops.  Anyone want to participate?

[GSOgymrat]

I'm pondering doing large scale full color nude portraits of Lipo Kids with Olan Mills backdrops.  Anyone want to participate?

Only if you put enough Vaseline on the lense to make me beautiful.

[mjmel]

Only if you put enough Vaseline on the lense to make me beautiful.

 
OH MY! gymrat is venturing into dangerous territory here!
I'm SO jealous.
 

Mike

[Ann]

Of course they don't want models with lipoatrophy!   Ssshhh.....we can't let anyone know that AIDS isn't a "pretty disease".....

The idea of them not wanting anyone with lipo really pisses me off too, even though I'm yet on meds and don't suffer from lip. It's discrimination of the worst kind.

And whatever happened to truth in advertising? I thought there were laws in place in the US that kept companies from making false claims and to my mind, showing ONLY people without lipo is exactly that - making an false claim.

Once again, I'm so glad that there are laws in the UK to prevent the advertising of medications. At least we don't have to see unrealistic portrayals of people who take hiv meds on billboards etc.

Ann

[bocker3]

The idea of them not wanting anyone with lipo really pisses me off too, even though I'm yet on meds and don't suffer from lip. It's discrimination of the worst kind.

And whatever happened to truth in advertising? I thought there were laws in place in the US that kept companies from making false claims and to my mind, showing ONLY people without lipo is exactly that - making an false claim.

Once again, I'm so glad that there are laws in the UK to prevent the advertising of medications. At least we don't have to see unrealistic portrayals of people who take hiv meds on billboards etc.

Ann

I guess I look at this like any other advertising -- you use what will help sell your product.  Everyone in toothpaste commercials have perfect teeth.  Everyone in cruise commercials are hot.  Everyone in commercials for diabetes drugs have all their appendages.  It would be suicidal for any company to market the products using images that would create a negative image for someone.  These aren't meant as public service announcements.

Now -- I agree with Ann -- I don't think we should allow advertisements for medications, but seeing that we do, we can't expect these companies to do things that would have the OPPOSITE effect of what marketing is about.

Mike
(modified to better make a point)

[Ann]

I guess I look at this like any other advertising -- you use what will help sell your product.  Everyone in toothpaste commercials have perfect teeth.  Everyone in cruise commercials are hot.  Everyone in commercials for diabetes drugs have all their appendages.  It would be suicidal for any company to market the products using images that would create a negative image for someone.  These aren't meant as public service announcements.

Now -- I agree with Ann -- I don't think we should allow advertisements for medications, but seeing that we do, we can't expect these companies to do things that would have the OPPOSITE effect of what marketing is about.

Mike
(modified to better make a point)

The example of diabetes meds doesn't ring true, as it's not the meds that cause amputation, but the disease itself.

If they're going to be allowed to advertise medications, they should be held to a stricter definition of "truth in advertising" IMO. At the very least, they should be required to add a disclaimer stating the more common side-effects associated with WHATEVER drug they're trying to sell (and not in tiny print, either). It's not like we're talking toothpaste or cruises here, we're talking about people's lives - and quite often medications that are going to save those lives. Toothpaste isn't life-or-death.

Ann

[bocker3]

The example of diabetes meds doesn't ring true, as it's not the meds that cause amputation, but the disease itself.

If they're going to be allowed to advertise medications, they should be held to a stricter definition of "truth in advertising" IMO. At the very least, they should be required to add a disclaimer stating the more common side-effects associated with WHATEVER drug they're trying to sell (and not in tiny print, either). It's not like we're talking toothpaste or cruises here, we're talking about people's lives - and quite often medications that are going to save those lives. Toothpaste isn't life-or-death.

Ann

I agree with overall feeling. 
While you (and I) may see my examples as different -- advertisers do not.  They are simply trying to get a target audience to choose their product over their competitors  whether that is HIV meds, diabetes meds, cruises, or toothpaste.  The fact remains that, unless there is a law to mandate differently, no advertiser is going to go the way of a realistic representation.  They will list the side effects, as required, in the most unobtrusive way possible.

I'm not defending this -- I'm simply stating that advertising is advertising -- all the hand-wringing and anger isn't going to change it -- without getting legislation.  So, we shouldn't aim anger at advertisers -- it should be directed at the government that allows medications to be advertised to the public.

When I read posts like this -- I get the feeling that we want these advertising companies to act like educators to the uninfected.  I don't see this as their role (and clearly -- neither do they).  They are marketing to doctors and HIV infected people. 

Mike

[Ann]

Mike, yes, we are pretty much in agreement - except for the idea that I would want advertising agencies to educate the uninfected, because I don't. I just want them to be more realistic and truthful. But yes, you are correct in saying it's the governments which ultimately need to be held responsible for allowing such practices.

The closest we see in the UK is advertising - and I've only seen it in hiv-oriented magazines - of the companies themselves who manufacture hiv meds. They don't mention specific drugs - they're not allowed.

For example, looking through my last six quarterly copies of the UK publication Positively Women, there are only two drug company ads in each magazine.

Five of the magazines have an ad for Abbott on the back cover. The only graphic is Abbott's trademark "a", formed from a red ribbon. The text below the graphic reads "Awareness. Understanding. Commitment" In the lower left-hand corner it says "Shaping the future of HIV care" and in the lower right-hand corner, the trademark "a" appears again along with Abbott Virology (the only actual mention of Abbott). One magazine also advertises Abbott on the back cover, but the graphic is two different hands, cupped together, holding the red-ribbon trademark "a". There is no text in the left corner and the right corner is basically the same as above, but instead of saying "Abbott Virology", it says "Abbott A Promise for Life."

Inside five of the magazines, the only med-related advertisement is from Gilead. This ad shows a group of people (in one case it's a different photo of people in a line) from all walks of life - and no, none of them show signs of lipo. The text above the photo says "Putting Patients 1st", with a red ribbon. In the lower right hand corner, the only mention of the company is "Gilead. Advancing Therapeutics. Improving Lives."

In one magazine, the only drug ad is a joint effort from (sponsored by) Gilead and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The graphic shows a hand holding an all-white Rubik cube, with a red ribbon in the lower right-hand corner with sponsored by BMS and Gilead beneath the ribbon. The bottom third of the page is red with white text saying - "Life is complicated enough. Talking to your doctor may help you manage your HIV regimen better." (Gilead and Bristol-Myers Squibb are joint manufacturers of Atripla)

So while they're getting their company logos in print, they're not hawking any particular drug. And let's face it, the main bonus is that the money they pay to have their logos in print enable the publication to keep going. I don't mind this type of advertising because they aren't saying such and such a drug is what you should be taking.

By comparison, my May 2009 POZ magazine (an American publication for those of you who might not be aware) starts off with a four-page ad for a contest sponsored by Reyataz (Bristol-Myers Squibb). Obviously an ad for Reyataz, but to be fair, the main reason the ad is four pages long is because they list the whole FDS-Approved Patient Labeling Patient Information. It is also (fairly) prominently mentioned that REYATAZ is one of several treatment options your doctor may consider. Directly below that, it states: You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch or call 1-800-FDA-1088.   So kudos to BMS for truth in advertising in that particular instance.

Next up is Merck's three page ad for Isentress. Again, patient information is included. A few pages later, we have a four page advertisement for Prezista followed closely by a four-page ad for Atripla. This is fifteen pages of drug advertisement before page 20 - out of a total page count of 44, 46 if you count the inside covers, the front of which is part of the Reyataz ad.

I would imagine (but don't know because my only affiliation with POZ magazine is the forums) that POZ magazine insists on such long advertisements because they want the full patient information to be included. But how many other publications have the same attention to detail?

Does anyone have any examples of hiv med advertisements where the ads are only a page or two long and do not include the extensive patient information that POZ does? Ads on telly? Ads on billboards or public transportation?

Ann

[Peter Staley]

Ann -- the FDA requires the full patient insert in pharma print ads that mention a drug and what the drug does.  For TV ads, they need to provide a website where folks can read the same info.

Pharma can get around this requirement only by running what's called a non-branded ad -- something that doesn't actually mention their drug (like a "get tested for HIV" ad, or "are your HIV meds causing diarrhea? Ask your doctor about other options" ad).

[poz4afewyears]

Great. Gilead trying to further perpetuate the myth that Truada doesn't cause lipid problems. I understand they are selling a product, but this borders on false advetisement.