There are people from the Pharmas at social networkings.
I had some discussions and some people attacked me with all the pharma's rhetorical weapons.
Perhaps showing that they are advertising is better for other people to see to whom we are talking to.

I've been following this on Twitter via John Mack's Twitter feed.

Here's interesting twist. I read the pharma drug company Twitter's, get info and write negative posts on it, taking their spin and turning against them.

Secondly, I wrote a post about Zyprexa and quoted spokeswoman Marni Lemons and did an "at Marni Lemons" in my Tweet with my post link....she reacted by blocking me. Though on Twitter that doesn't block anyone from reading feeds, ironically.

So, they can try and play the game on Twitter to promote themselves, but it doesn't always work to their advantage, many news stories for mental health flow right outta their own writing.

YES I consider it direct to consumer advertising, it's how I found out AstraZenena sponsors NAMI and via Twitter promote their own "Living with Bipolar" website, of course promoting Seroquel.

Philip, sometimes your anti-pharma enthusiasm ventures into outright chauvinism.

I happen to agree with many of your points-- that psych meds are used far too often, have side effects about which drug companies (and many doctors) fail to inform patients, and the industry and profession is rife with corruption.

However, I can't deny my own clinical experience that some people feel "they owe their lives" to meds like Seroquel and Paxil, and even though I'm a proponent of lifestyle interventions and behavioral change over meds, I believe the medications do truly help a lot of people.

So while industry-sponsored "Fan Pages" and surreptitiously funded "bipolar pages" or "depression pages" are indeed questionable, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see honest patient commentary on the Web singing the praises of drugs that (at least in their own perspective-- and it's the patient's experience that ultimately counts) give them a new lease on life.

If PhARMA is going to sponsor and run supposed propaganda fan sites. Then they should by law post a complete side effect profile for any drug mentioned on that site; along with full disclosure that its a drug company sponsored site.

It not like they they haven't been doing this already. Just look at "Psych Central" and you can see PhARMA's rubber stamp clearly all over it.

You would think owning the FDA, plastering Medical Journals with ghost writings lies, controlling most major universities research and development programs, having direct to doctor/consumer indoctrination, dumping boat loads of cash lobbying those representative crooks in Washington D.C., and endless magazine/TV ads promoting their latest poison would be enough.

I gather PhARMA feels insecure and the need to cloud the truth in the internet social circle also.

Well then I guess they'd also better start a Viagra fan page and oh, hell, why not a crystal meth and crack fan page? Free speech!