GSK Pharmaceuticals moves money out of statin drug research to focus on paying internet trolls

GSK Pharmaceuticals moves money out of statin drug research to focus on paying internet trolls

BRENTFORD, LONDON, UK – GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals made a major announcement this morning, announcing they were moving money out the research and development of statin drugs to focus on an increased online troll presence.

“We feel that in 2015, it is important to have pharma shills and pharma trolls all over social media and various news media websites,” said CEO Andrew Witty. “We are moving some money around within the company and we estimate our new pharma shill and pharma troll budget should top out at around $345 million for 2015.”

Pharma Trolls are everywhere on the internet these days, crushing down free thinkers and crunchy mommy bloggers who go against the mainstream.

“My site and Facebook page is infected with them,” said Modern Alternative Mom, Kate Tietje. “Luckily I have the almighty Ban Hammer, but even then it turns into a game of whack-a-mole.”

Many other natural, green, organic, clean, wholesome bloggers agree with MAM’s assessment.

“When I post something on my page, I don’t want to have to answer to people asking for “proof” and “evidence”. That is completely disrespectful and a violation of my rights. They should just take what I say at face value and never question it, that is my first amendment right” said Vani Hari, aka The Food Babe. “These big pharma shills and big pharma trolls are just a waste of nitrogen.”

The new funding it set to kick in next week, so keep an eye on your favorite pseudoscience, conspiracy laden anti-vaccine blog for more anonymous trolls pushing the big pharma, government mandated agenda.

  • Spamihazit

    Finally, the shill checks are going to start rolling in!

  • Pingback: Psiram » Big-Pharma investiert noch mehr in Online-Trolle!()

  • Eliza Silber

    Fun post, but why only bash women in it? Are you afraid to laught at men or something?

    • Chris

      Because at the time this article was posted, both of those very real women were making lots of noise. There are plenty of articles on this site that bash men.

      Now the real question is: why did it take you so many months to find this particular article? Perhaps you have not found the ones on a certain homeopath, a few naturopaths, one man who was stripped of his legal right to practice medicine, and a few supplement shills. Keep wandering through, perhaps you’ll like them too.

      • Eliza Silber

        Hm, you are actually right, my apologies.
        I got to this site from a German one (https://www.psiram.com/) that’s quite a bit sexist and expected the same pattern. Goes to show that you can’t judge a site by a single post I guess.

        • Chris

          No problem, I understand.

          What is the point of a satirical site if the subjects are restricted? This place also pokes fun a real medical care practitioners, and some of our favorite science “celebrities”:
          http://thesciencepost.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-really-regretting-that-pluto-tattoo/

          … and even themselves:
          http://thesciencepost.com/the-top-5-signs-you-may-be-addicted-to-being-a-skeptic/

          (that had lots of comments before they remuddled the site, again)

          • Eliza Silber

            Well, satire aims to use humor to make the world a better place. If you try to do that by kicking down on minorities you inadvertently help preserve the status quo. (E.g you strengthen the “women are irrational” narrative which is In the end puts more women in homeopathy).

            Sure, two examples are not always meant to represent a whole but it can look that way (especially if the reader has experienced a lot of problematic sceptic attitudes). In the end, It’s a walk on razor’s edge. Sometimes you trip, sometimes you fall, but you have to aim to stay on it, cause if you don’t you help perpetuate the thing you aim to fight.

            Like I said, I see the broader picture now and my initial criticism was premature, but please mind the nuances, cause your examples aren’t very good.

          • Chris

            Satire is not always funny. Jonathan Swift’s satire “A Modest Proposal” would be not be described as humorous.

            Sorry my examples were not very good. I tried to show you the range, including on that was self-deprecating (I was not aware that Bill Nye the Science Guy who was also skewered in one example was a minority… who knew?). This site does accept submissions from those who offer. Perhaps you would like to improve its content.

          • Eliza Silber

            I find “A Modest Proposal” very funny. It’s quite dark and takes things to their logical conclusion, thus mocking the assumptions and rationale. Yet, it does not attempt to get a few extra laughs by taking cheap shots at the poor too, as contemporary comedy does. In fact it’s chilliness comes largely from the fact that the author writes rational and with little sentiment. Thus, the mind agrees with most points, then suddenly finds itself in a very dark place, finding solace and joy only when it has comprehended the deeper meaning of the author being satirical.

            I don’t get the part about Bill Nyle but there was no specific insult there just “two guys got drinking and it was a wild night” with the ironic part being that of course this is improbable.The same is true for “mocking” your readers. It’s very warmhearted irony, little more than a pat on the back.

            The original post meanwhile was: Look how ridiculous it would be if these people (one mother, one foodblogger) where right! That’s hardly satire (even though one could try to equate internet fame and power) as there is no irony. It’s polemics. The closest thing to irony (by Alanis Morissette’s “Ironic” standard) is that they believe that there’s a company behind it when it’s really just a bunch of volunteers from another web community. By that sad standard, every child who repeats another in a mocking voice is a master of satire.

            Or more insidious: That those volunteers have a right to prove how wrong those people are en mass and banning them from the discussion is a violation of their rights, that those bloggers speak their mind without giving a platform to their critics. Sadly, some people take this to heart which can turn into outright harassment. I’ve seen it happen on all sides of issues, the most prominent probably being dawkins and his latest fringe theories on religion, feminsm, social justice etc. I especially cringed on the day he reposted racist propaganda inadvertently then pretendet it wasn’t his fault that he hadn’t checked it.

            I still think that the article was fine, but somehow this turned into a discussion on comedy, which is a very serious issue.

          • Chris

            Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye are presently science communicator celebrities who appear on “StarTalk” which is carried by the National Geographic TV cable channel in the USA. It is also broadcast on radio and available for download as a podcast. They both had guest roles on an episode of a North American (filmed in Canada) science fiction program Star Gate: Atlantis. Which joked that Dr. Tyson is an astrophysicist and Bill Nye was a mechanical engineer.

            Mr. Nye was working as a Boeing Airplane engineer when he veered off into a local area comedy show that created his “Science Guy” character. This turned into his own public television science show for children twenty years ago. He now works with Dr. Tyson as a science communicator.

            You made an accusation of racism, which I assume was because I posted the article poking fun at Dr. Tyson and his role in communicating that Pluto is no longer called a planet. Something he jokes about all the time, just like he says on his program he is our “personal astrophysicist.” The article also mentioned his science communication partner Bill Nye the Science Guy. So I decided to tease you by alluding to the whitest character in the website (do a web search on Bill Nye and the “high fiving white guys”).

            Essentially you are offended because you have not wasted enough of your time watching American/Canadian television over the past twenty five years. Nor have you lurked on certain American/Canadian media last year to see Ms. Hari and Ms. Tietje being discussed for their lunatic ideas that have blossomed into insanity. Actually, I believe they are almost forgotten at this time. The new idiot on the block is David “Avocado” Wolfe, though there will always be the “Health Ranger” (Or “Danger”) Mike Adams, “can I sell you a sunbed or some supplements because vaccines are dangerous” Joe Mercola and the ever foolish homeopath Dana Ullman (often called the DUllman, who is a gray haired guy who does not know what “nano” means, just like Alanis Morissette does not know the definition of “Irony”).

            Again, if you do not like the satire on this site you have options: create better article or ignore it.

          • Eliza Silber

            WTF? I said nothing about racism whatsover. I said your examples wheren’t good and elaborated that point later. I thought this was a discussion, not some no-holds barred slugfest to prove your oppinion right and insult anyone who dared criticise. Also your “just go away or create something better”-approach to criticism” stinks. Have a day.

          • Chris

            Sorry I misinterpreted when you said: “If you try to do that by kicking down on minorities you inadvertently help preserve the status quo.”

            Again, if you do not like this site you can submit your own or just not visit it.