Pharmaceutical marketing on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abilify is for cocaine and methamphetamine dependency, that is written on the Abilify page of Wikipedia as of the writing of this post. Give me a break. Abilify for stimulant addiction, they have got to be kidding right ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilify

How they prey on any possible market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing

The Abilify page is just one example, if you look up any psychological problem on the free encyclopedia, the marketers were there pushing there pills with those words "may" and some study "suggests", its all over Wikipedia.


Off label promotion is illegal.

Copy_Cat - you have a point that someone's breaking the law, but please don't tell me that the following equation is not true:

Wikipedia = source of all knowledge

If you dare to question this, I will fart in your general direction!

Ian Reynir wrote:Copy_Cat - you have a point that someone's breaking the law, but please don't tell me that the following equation is not true:

Wikipedia = source of all knowledge

If you dare to question this, I will fart in your general direction!

Have you talked to the average person lately ? The dumbing down of America is working.

Wikipedia = source of all knowledge ??

I hope so cause I like to mess with the mental health topics.

Example: this is mine,

Past exposure to psychiatric medications theory-

The past exposure theory suggests that exposure to psychiatric medication alters neural synapses, introducing an imbalance that was not previously present. Discontinuation of the drug is expected to result in symptoms of psychiatric illness which resolve once the drug is restarted.[24] This theory suggests that while it may appear that the medication is working, it is only treating a disorder caused by the medication itself.[24] New exposure to psychiatric medication may lead to heightened sensitivity to the effects of drugs and alcohol, which has a deteriorating effect on the patient.[25][26][27][28]

Someone messed with and watered down the wording ! but "Past exposure to psychiatric medications theory" is mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_diagn ... ons_theory

-- Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:05 am --

I put the truth in many wiki topics

hehe Copy_Cat I can totally picture you going in and changing a lot of the mental health topics.

Ian Reynir wrote:Wikipedia = source of all knowledge

If you dare to question this, I will fart in your general direction!

I have to agree with Copy_Cat, with the dumbing down of society...many people take wikipedia as fact. Why do you think it's one of the first things that shows up when you do a google search instead of a scholarly website?

Cheze2 wrote:hehe Copy_Cat I can totally picture you going in and changing a lot of the mental health topics.

Ian Reynir wrote:Wikipedia = source of all knowledge

If you dare to question this, I will fart in your general direction!

I have to agree with Copy_Cat, with the dumbing down of society...many people take wikipedia as fact. Why do you think it's one of the first things that shows up when you do a google search instead of a scholarly website?

I quoted Monty Python! Perhapse my comment wasn't sarchastic enough?

Cheze2 wrote:hehe Copy_Cat I can totally picture you going in and changing a lot of the mental health topics.

Ian Reynir wrote:Wikipedia = source of all knowledge

If you dare to question this, I will fart in your general direction!

I have to agree with Copy_Cat, with the dumbing down of society...many people take wikipedia as fact. Why do you think it's one of the first things that shows up when you do a google search instead of a scholarly website?

It's pretty easy to get stuff stick on Wikipedia articles if you source your claims well enough. If Wikipedia is bad, it's because the competent aren't editing it, which probably means they're busy watching TV instead. It could also mean vandalism, but I think that's relatively rare.

^ Its amusing how they only use secondary sources, and avoid interpreting or analysing any science - and at the same time they consider themselves science based.

People who only refer to what other people say, without really ever interpreting studies directly.....I can't take that seriously. I mean wikipedia is a great starting point summary, to launch further searches, get a vague general overview of the topic in order to be able to look deeper at studies, writings, etc, but one would be silly to stop there.

The other day I found a medication interaction, that was major, life threatening, but wasnt mentioned on wikipedia. Of course I added it in, but it goes to show, you should not be placing your mental trust in a single search result/source - and if you do it could end very badly.

Copy_Cat wrote:Off label promotion is illegal.

Reporting a result from a study on Wikipedia constutues neither "promotion" nor an illegal act.

Copy_Cat wrote:Example: this is mine,

Past exposure to psychiatric medications theory-

The past exposure theory suggests that exposure to psychiatric medication alters neural synapses, introducing an imbalance that was not previously present. Discontinuation of the drug is expected to result in symptoms of psychiatric illness which resolve once the drug is restarted.[24] This theory suggests that while it may appear that the medication is working, it is only treating a disorder caused by the medication itself.[24] New exposure to psychiatric medication may lead to heightened sensitivity to the effects of drugs and alcohol, which has a deteriorating effect on the patient.[25][26][27][28]

Wikipedia is often poor source of information because of people [mod edit] insert junk into articles. Only one of your references counts as a citable source. Look at this:

Reference 24 goes to http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Anatomy%20of%20an%20Epidemic.html which is a book review.

Reference 25 goes to a speculative article on a blog: http://knowledgeisnecessity.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/supersensitivity-psychosis-evidence.html which has negligible evidentiary value for the claims you are making.

Reference 26 goes to an article on a site that belongs to a group that call themselves the "ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION": http://www.ahrp.org/risks/biblio0100.php

Reference 27 goes to an actual credible source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1990.tb05477.x/abstract WooHoo!
[mod edit]

-- Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:12 pm --

Recovered45 wrote:^ Its amusing how they only use secondary sources, and avoid interpreting or analysing any science - and at the same time they consider themselves science based.

People who only refer to what other people say, without really ever interpreting studies directly.....I can't take that seriously.

[mod edit]

mctps wrote:If Wikipedia is bad, it's because the competent aren't editing it, which probably means they're busy watching TV instead.

The competent and knowledgeable often leave in frustration.