There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Uh...bronchitis and asthma are two different, although related, disorders. I'm not sure it really fits here. --Kels 13:57, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
- 1 Moved from main page
- 2 Bad Science
- 3 Jokes
- 4 Sucks
- 5 GSK fined
- 6 National Nurses United weary of Big Pharma
- 7 Shapoval's Edit from 28th Feb 2014
- 8 Erectile dysfunction
- 9 Turns out there is a video game called: Big Pharma. Should we add it for fun?
- 10 Add A Section on Amphetamines and Abuse Rates?
- 11 Price gouging and Regulation
- 12 Is it a conspiracy theory that Big Pharma and Big Alcohol have prevented the legalization of marijuana for profit motives?
Moved from main page
- Chronic Bronchitis (which often accompanies "COPD"): AKA asthma.
Now can someone explain to me how Big Pharma is responsible for Bronchitis, which was identified at the flippin' turn of the 19th century being the new name for asthma which didn't even appear in medical literature until something like a half century later? Or was it Big Apothecary back then? --Kels 20:31, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- COPD has not replaced Asthma as the medical term. Asthma, along with emphysema and chronic bronchitis, are all types of COPD. It's similar to saying lymphoma has replaced cancer, where it is obviously just a form of cancer. --Cranial Suppositorypull your head out of your ass 09:05, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Just finished reading Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science. It is really something every RW'er should read (unless they're ony here for the CP lulz). It examines evidence-based medicine, dscribes how trials should be designed and where there maybe flaws. Knocks down the homeopathy myths, various unqualified media nutritionists, big pharma, sensationalism in the media and the general disdain for science. If there's any support for the idea I'd like to nominate it for the RW Book of the Year (We do have one, don't we?). His writing style is very easy and he's quite amusing. -- Lily Ta, wack! 04:47, 21 December 2008 (EST)
- Just for posterity, this user (who probably has grandchildren by now) is absolutely right. That book, and Bad Pharma. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This article needs more dick jokes, IMO – Nick Heer 19:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
This article already is one big joke, so there's no point. Just add the word "penis" here and there and you are done. I don't see how this article is to persuade ANYONE there's no conspiracy, if only the DEBUNKERS who probably use this site to set straight any self-doubts they might be having.
Remember kids, cognitive dissonance is a powerful tool if you're not aware of it ;) all you need is a webpage like this to reinforce your spoonfed ideas and opinions, and you're ready to endure more honest and valid ideas and opinions! And tear them down to the ground along with the author, pretending you are in some way more intelligent since you get your info from, oh wow, rationalwiki! Oh lord...
Was this website really necessary? Wikipedia wasn't full enough of mainstream propaganda? I guess not, as this one just laughs at theories rather than even try debunk them as wikipedia even does.
Here's a clue for you, the idiot reverting this edit asap; Big Pharma is a stupid name to draw attention from ACTUAL big pharmaceutical companies that have a very elaborate scheme of buying out anyone who is nearing a cure for diseases that are profitable.
I will break it down in terms that should even be comprehensible to the biggest idiot on here, possibly the one undoing these changes.
Step 1) have eyes and hands everywhere, in every research domain possible Step 2) as soon as a research team is on A right track, buy them out, including non-disclosure contracts with consequences for talking, and massive pay-outs Step 3) byebye possible cure, byebye research team, byebye any chance of this being exposed and byebye medical and scientific integrity.
I could not care less what the muppets on this wiki think of me or my fact based opinion. I have experienced this first hand, not with a cancer cure, but who cares? If they'll go the distance for one thing, I'm pretty convinced there is no way they'd fix CANCER. But you guys go ahead, I hope every one of you skeptics gets cancer in their lives and gets to face the nice wall that is the medical world of today. May your trust in "big pharma" give you the courage needed to survive a gruesome attack on your entire system, all in the name of "curing" you. — Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs
- Good call, because producing a cure for cancer would mean nobody would ever get it to begin with. Because that's how disease works in the land of stupid, I guess. King Skeleton (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
This article sucks. The "new maladies" section has one illness listed, so I'm changing it to "New Malady" until that is improved. The "ED" name change does not give an original name, and Priapism doesn't seem to belong there. Also, I don't see a clear reason why a name changing from impotence to ED is bad - the only result I can imagine being that men are more likely to seek treatment for a disorder with a less stigmatized name.
The advertising section seems too large to me for its relative importance, but people love salient examples like that so it's probably not a battle worth fighting. Publication Bias and Ghostwriting should be merged and expanded, as I have to imagine the corruption of the scientific process would be a little bit more interesting to an RW reader than the soft-hues herpes ads on TV. The Conspiracy Theories section is fun but a little messy. That is one gigantic paragraph.
National Nurses United weary of Big Pharma
They complain that vaccination is not good for them, because it's being pushed for profit purposes: "NNU is also calling on the pharmaceutical representatives from Pfizer and Novartis, who are members of the NVAC, to recuse themselves from any votes that take place on the issue of the mandatory flu vaccine. The companies stand to make millions of dollars from flu vaccine sales. There are no nurses currently on the NVAC board...It is unfortunate that for-profit pharmaceutical companies were consulted in this matter yet the voices of the nation’s direct-care hospital RNs have gone unheard,... Nurses are calling for an open process to explore the best way to protect patients and healthcare workers, not one that is driven by corporate profits." Source: Largest National Nurses Union Opposes Mandatory Flu Vaccination as Condition of Employment NNU website. --Brasov (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Shapoval's Edit from 28th Feb 2014
Big Pharma! Cancer is cured. But cancer researchers and pharmaceutical companies are keeping the cure a secret because they're making so much money. The truth is that a large number of very prominent conspiracy theories have turned out to actually be true. Cancer researchers ignore iron-cancer information-1905-2014. Baba Vanga (Vangelia Dimitrova) was a blind Bulgarian mystic, clairvoyant and herbalist. Researchers claim that Vanga foretold the break-up of the Soviet Union, the Chernobyl disaster, the date of Stalin's death, the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk, and the September 11 attacks. In 1994 Vanga predicted: A day will come and cancer will be chained in iron! A cure, which shall cure people from this illness, must contain the iron, because this element is decreasing in the human organism. The Father of Oncology (Vadim Shapoval) says that a cell needs to have iron overload (when excess iron accumulates within cellular organelles) before it becomes cancerous. According to the Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory (Theory from the Old Testament; Iron Conception), any human cell should be interpreted: 1) as a society of atoms and molecules; 2) as a society of organelles; 3) as a society of dia-, para-, superpara-, ferri- and ferromagnetic nanoparticles that have certain local magnetic contacts. Cancer occurs through excessive accumulation of superpara-, ferri- and ferromagnetic nanoparticles within cancerous cells. Intracellular molecules FeO;Fe2O3;Fe3O4 are the main creators of intracellular superpara-, ferri- and ferromagnetic nanoparticles that produce (magnetically) genomic rearrangements, chaotic chromosomal aberrations and chromothripsis within cancerous cells. Any cancer is a subtle iron disease; intracellular superpara-ferri-ferromagnetic 'infection'. Magnetism (a class of physical phenomena; a force of attraction or repulsion between nano-objects) causes cancer. Ceramic needles can suppress any tumors and large metastases. Ceramic needles can quickly create harmless infiltrations (harmless necroses; deposits of cells that die; benign capsules). Ceramic needles can enter solution [sulfur (2%) + olive oil (98%); 36.6C - 39.0C] to tumors and large metastases. Anti-iron slow blood loss (even 75%) [hemoglobin control], anti-iron goat’s milk diet and anti-iron drinking water containing hydrogen sulfide can neutralize any micro-metastases and isolated tumor cells. Vadim Shapoval (Father of Oncology) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/opinions/170339 ; http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/opinions/172864 ; http://www.ovarian-cancer-facts.com/ovarian-cancer-treatment.html ; http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Big_Pharma ; Together We (RationalWiki, Ovarian Cancer Facts, Medical News Today, The Scientist, TIME, Google, Facebook and Vadim Shapoval) Will Beat Cancer
I removed the sentence "This is not really a new condition, just one that was unusual before profitable "ED" treatments went on the market." because it was unsourced and I am almost certain it's not true. I've read numerous references from throughout history to men of advanced age having difficulties in this area. Of course my objection is likewise unsourced, so if someone can find a reference indicating that ED is in fact an invention of Big Pharma, by all means restore it, with the proper citation. PenitentWhaler (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Turns out there is a video game called: Big Pharma. Should we add it for fun?
- I'd say create an article in the Funspace for it, simply because we could go strides with making an entire article solely joking about the game and its reception by anti-vaxxers, for example. Gooniepunk (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Add A Section on Amphetamines and Abuse Rates?
I've got a link. Thoughts?
- On amphetamine ABUSE, certainly. But there's nothing wrong with the medication - it is literally even healthy long-term for the right demographics- and the vast majority of adult ADHD suffers are underdiagnosed and undermedicated/medicated wrongly. Thus there are two problems to cover: the ABUSE of amphetamines, and the failure to get enough amphetamines out to enough people who have a legitimate medical need, but are undiagnosed or have otherwise fallen through the cracks. Signed, a clinically diagnosed adult ADHD sufferer and daily user of medicinal amphetamines, without which my life would not function and without which I might not have been here today. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- And ps: ADHD denialism and fear of psychopharmacology are two core pillars of the modern Anti-psychiatry movement (often led by fronts for Scientology). We cannot do enough to refute those anti-science scumbags. They play with the lives of their fellow man just like the anti-vaxxers do. For just as good reason, too. To one hundred percent a force of needless destruction, confusion and suffering today. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Price gouging and Regulation
What a farce. Is this article arguing for de-regulation? What, has RW been taken over by Paul-bots and anti-government Reagan/Gingrich Republicans? Price gouging and monopoly pricing on drugs exists for one reason and one reason only : FDA regulators. You need to clarify some of these issues before you start going down that road in this article. nobsBern baby bern 19:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. As a person living in a rich, industrialised western country - the source of the bizarre medicine prices in the US are due to lack of government intervention. See Canada, France, the UK, Sweden... countries where medicine is affordable via Healthcare being a right, not a priviliege. In northern US states, some Americans travel across the border to Canada to get the cancer Medication just because it is something like a hundred times cheaper there. And the FDA needs MORE funding, an enhanced jurisdiction and - most importantly - a firewall to the pharmaceutical industry, not less of any of these. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- And also to curb this price gouging.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC) 20:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. The point being first and foremost to serve and protect the customers/end users/citizens, from quacks charlatans as well as horribad business practices from major companies. And I'm not saying an environment conducive to the growth and prosperity of the pharmacological industry isn't important too - it totally is - but there needs to be a system of checks and balances for all parties involved, et cetera... It needs to be something that's not the current situation in the US. Nor am I saying any other nation has a flawless utopia, but let's face it - the US healthcare system is a joke compared to the rest of the industrialised world, even when some of those countries are running with severe handicaps (and sometimes also suffer from poor choicemaking in other areas) compared to the US. Point being, Bernie and the movie Sicko is on to something. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- And also to curb this price gouging.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC) 20:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it a conspiracy theory that Big Pharma and Big Alcohol have prevented the legalization of marijuana for profit motives?
- Yes and no. If recreational or medicinal marijuana were fully legalized, Big Pharma & Phillip Morris (Big Tobacco) would soon tkae over the market. We seen this already in Big Pharma taking over the opiate market with oxycodone, oxycotine, etc., or the Colorado marijuana packing regulation that effectively put all the mom 'n pop growers who fought for legalization for 30 years out of the retail end of the business. Call it corporate cronyism. nobsBern baby bern 00:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)