Mumsnet

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
August 16, 2013 | 2 Comments

Comments

  1. Not wanting to be accused of cherring picking, I decided to do a a few more searches for antidepressants on mumsnet. As the brand name that pretty much defines the entire class of drugs, I expected prozac to top this list by some margin.

    Mumsnet – Search for advice, by parents for parents
    Here you can search through Mumsnet’s wealth of advice for parents, by parents.

    1. Citalopram – About 2,570 results (0.16 seconds)
    2. Prozac – About 2,200 results (0.18 seconds)
    3. Sertraline – About 1,340 results (0.27 seconds)
    4. Fluoxetine – About 985 results (0.16 seconds)
    5. Seroxat – About 490 results (0.19 seconds)
    6. Venlafaxine – About 377 results (0.29 seconds)
    7. Paroxetine – About 206 results (0.14 seconds)
    8. Escitalopram – About 185 results (0.17 seconds)
    9. Cipralex – About 149 results (0.13 seconds)
    10. Zoloft – About 125 results (0.20 seconds)
    11. Celexa – About 122 results (0.11 seconds)
    12. Effexor – About 90 results (0.14 seconds)
    13. Duloxetine – About 49 results (0.13 seconds)
    14. Fluvoxamine – About 17 results (0.12 seconds)
    15. Cymbalta – About 17 results (0.10 seconds)

    I don’t have access to prescription numbers in the uk, but according to a paper in the British Journal of Psychiatry,…”the three most commonly prescribed SSRI antidepressants (fluoxetine, paroxetine and sertraline; n=10 308) in the UK were included”.

    http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/177/2/163.full

  2. There was a similar marketing scam going at the old google groups circa 2000-2005 — sci.med.cardiology, and sci med, for statins. We worked those groups with the same marketing knowledge that the pharma wonks did. They met their match in us. We were all women who had either been injured by statins, or had family members who were. We were all writers, reseachers, and damn angry.

    We know we had pharma reps working against us, but we were as motivated as the reps were, albeit, not by money. We made inroads with the commenters, who while not inclined to believe a group of women/strangers on the internet, had experienced to some degree the side effects we wrote about. Fully half of our work there was to out the reps and we, knowing our way around the internet better than they did, found where they work, who they were in real, and embarrassed them with it at will. We used whatever we could.

    Toward the end of our work there, we became connected with Drl Beatrice Golumb, who eventually was funded $5 million from NIH to study statin side effectx. I know were were instrumental in that even being considered.

    Incidentally, George Monbiot wrote about Monsanto pioneering this type of social media marketing, here: http://www.monbiot.com/2002/05/14/the-fake-persuaders/

    I’ve never seen anything since, where women worked together extemporaneously, to back down industry. Hats off to you wherever you are gals, from you know who.

Leave a Reply