ABSTRACT
In the United States (US), where promotion is under the rigid control of the Food and Drug Administration, the indications or claims of efficacy were usually few in number and limited to those that could be supported by convincing scientific evidence. In December of 1976, in Bermuda, the US delegation introduced a resolution, calling for prescription drug labelling to be consistent with ‘the body of scientific and medical evidence pertaining to that product’. For a number of reasons, the record of chloramphenicol has long held a particular fascination for students of drug marketing and promotion. A related problem concerns the need for a cost-benefit analysis of using some high-risk drugs. Thus, it may be decided that a particular population group will benefit in the long run from widespread use of chloramphenicol. The discrepancies in Latin American drug promotion, and especially the failure to make full disclosure of hazards, could scarcely be denied.
