Talk:Big Pharma conspiracy theories

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2022
Incredibly trivial this is but, In source 10 titled 'Chakras, crystals and conspiracy theories: how the wellness industry turned its back on Covid science' when hovering over the source the publisher of the source is spelt as 'The Gurdian' which is incorrect, This should be changed to 'The Guardian'. 92bandox (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 16:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Problem regarding the head title, and too COVID-centric?
The term "Big Pharma" is nothing new, and is used to point to a very very wide range of theories and matters, by a wide groups of peoples. Like, big tons of them. Some of them are proven true, some are proven false, and some are not proven yet or impossible to be proven. Above all, "big pharma" is a term, and under certain context, are very similar to how we use the term "big tech" to point to major info-tech corporations.

We almost never say "big tech conspiracy theories" as one term, and when people used the term "big pharma", they usually don't automatically add "conspiracy theories" after that. "Big Pharma" as a term today is derogatory before having relations to any "conspiracy theory". Like, when people bash Facebook or Youtube for any form of censorship, they may call them "big tech", but the censorship is totally real, like real enough to be reported in major news.

In short, the head title and the etymology of the term needs more work.

Also it's not that COVID must be excluded, but a subsection of it is redundant, as there are whole pages dedicated to such matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vc06697 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The article needs more work; but a section on COVID (given the prominence of such conspiracies in that context) seems appropriate per WP:SUMMARY RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So what would you suggest? "Large pharmaceutical corporation conspiracy theories" ? The term used by the conspiracists is the intentionally derogatory term. --- Avatar317 (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How about just "Big Pharma"? Or to make it clearer as a specific term, "Big Pharma (word)"/"Big Pharma (term)"? Vc06697 (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about the term, it's about the conspiracy theory/theories. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This article has an identity crisis and two terms in the title contribute to the problem. Plus each of the terms has it's own problems. "Big Pharma" is generally a very POV term. And the most common use of "conspiracy theory" (including in this article) is to disparage criticism which does not allege a conspiracy and which usually is not a "theory" but rather a "take"/spin on established events/facts. My advice is figure out exactly what you want to cover and then select a suitable title. North8000 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Big Pharma" is generally a very POV term Yes, that fact is connected with the fact that there are conspiracy theories about it.
 * the most common use of "conspiracy theory" (including in this article) is to disparage criticism That is what conspiracy theorists usually say who call their conspiracy theories "criticism". I don't think there are any reliable sources agreeing with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The use of the label conspiracy theory to disparage criticism is briefly discussed in this article. Personally, I don't think think that the suggestion that publicly traded companies are concerned about profits is a conspiracy theory. Nor is the suggestion that some companies have encouraged overprescription of their products, particularly when they have been convicted of doing so.
 * According to the Wikipedia article, Purdue Pharma, it admitted "that it "knowingly and intentionally conspired and agreed with others to aid and abet" doctors dispensing medication "without a legitimate medical purpose."" That's not a conspiracy theory.
 * On the other hand, the paper I linked to says there is evidence that the term conspiracy theory has been so overused that it no longer has any persuasive effect. TFD (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:SYNTH, any source talking about conspiracy theories in general would have to mention the subject of the article to be included here.
 * publicly traded companies are concerned about profits Correct, that is not a conspiracy theory. Did anybody call it that?
 * "[..] aid and abet" doctors dispensing medication "without a legitimate medical purpose" Correct, that is not a conspiracy theory. Did anybody call it that?
 * The use of the "Big Pharma" hammer as a blanket reason to dismiss something, for example any evidence that contradicts one's own position opinion about some quackery, is a conspiracy theory, because it suggests, without knowing the first thing about the authors, that they were conspiring with some unspecified drug manufacturer to fake studies to make that quackery seem ineffective. That is the most common application of the BPCT I know. The article lists several others. The point is that the conspiracy theorist uses Big Pharma as an all-round reasoning killer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, per "No synthesis", "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." You couldn't actually discuss improvements to the article without synthesis. Your comment btw that my comments were synthesis is itself synthesis since you are using both my comments and WP:SYN to state a conclusion not found in either of the sources.
 * In fact, the article does imply that any criticism of pharmaceutical companies is conspiracism.
 * "Big Pharma conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories which claim that the medical community in general and pharmaceutical companies in particular, especially large corporations, operate for sinister purposes and against the public good....In each case the conspiracy theorists have blamed pharmaceutical companies' search for profits. A range of authors have shown these claims to be false."
 * We might consider rewriting it so that any claims made are explicit. Unfortunately, there is so little literature about the concept in general, that might be difficult. TFD (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that people think an idea these corporations act "operate for sinister purposes and against the public good" is merely "criticism". It's not, it's conspiracism. And that's what the sources say - as well as that this conspiracism helps torpedo genuine criticism of the pharma industry, of which much is to be made. Bon courage (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is to be an article on this topic, I think the title is a good one. Definitely don’t think COVID is too big a topic to have as a section in this article. I don’t think that the article implied that Pharma corps were profit seeking. I really think there should be more explicitly on what is not a BPCT. I have added three phrases with cites to address this. JustinReilly (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The title might be ok, but the lead section is complete nonsense: «claim that the medical community in general and pharmaceutical companies in particular, especially large corporations, operate for sinister purposes and against the public good». I see no source for the statement that conspiracy theories involving Big Pharma necessarily implicate "the medical community in general". Also, operating against the public good and for the shareholders' benefits is the definition of Shareholder capitalism, not a conspiracy theory. Nemo 07:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I too have a problem with the lead paragraph. My edits to address this were reverted. I had added this text to clarify that sometimes Pharma firms do not act in the interest of society, so not all allegations that they don’t are conspiracy theories. I think I will start a new thread when I can on these topics as they seem off topic to the original post. I will just say that I more or less agree with @Nemo bis’s point about shareholder capitalism. I apologize if the following is too “forumy,” but I think it’s useful for context. NB, this is just for context here for those (the vast majority of people) who don’t have a very solid understanding of how corps work and why they act as they do; NB also I don’t want to insert text to this effect into the article.
 * I went to Gtown law school and used to work as a corporate lawyer (my Dad too and he also used to work as a lawyer at FDA). C corporations (all public corporations such as Big Pharma are C corps) are *compelled* by two factors to seek the *maximum* possible profit: (1) the market for corporate control- ie corporate raiders and (2) corporate law, which has softened marginally over the decades, but essentially still requires corporate directors to pursue the *maximum* possible profit or the shareholders can mount a shareholder derivative suit to hold each director *personally* liable for the shortfall. For both of these reasons, corporations, including Pharma corps, are compelled to behave in a profit-seeking fashion to the exclusion- at least theoretically- of all considerations that would reduce (essentially short-term) profit. As one law professor has said “a corporation is a cost-externalizing machine like a shark is a killing machine; it can’t not act that way because that is entirely what it is designed to do.” FYI, The books and films The Corporation (and it’s sequel/follow up) are excellent introductions to this topic for laypeople by a well-regarded Corporate Law prof. JustinReilly (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Opioid Crisis a Conspiracy Too...
"If there is good evidence for a conspiracy, which is published in reliable sources..." And what are those "reliable" sources? 75.174.135.52 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS. Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Relevancy of Donald Trump
I do not think mentioning donald trump's remarks on antivax are relevant to the explanation of the various big pharma conspiracy theories. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_claims_of_relevance_are_false.

I believe this is an example of twice removed information. I do not contest that this information is important, rather that it should be moved to a more appropriate article. I would also add that the main article on vaccine hesitancy does not mention Donald Trump at all2A0C:5BC0:40:1008:EB59:6DAB:DE02:EABC (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Broken archives
What's up with ClueBot? /Archive 1 exists, but ClueBot is archiving discussions to /Archives/ 1. Endwise (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is either a bug or intended feature (I think its the former) with ClueBot III, where if the target page to archive to is set to a redirect page (or just the wrong page it seems. Basically, if the location isn't updated after a page move or when it was introduced, like here), the bot begins archiving at /Archives/ for some reason. I've merged the archive content into the standard /Archive 1 and fixed the location so this shouldn't continue to happen. Aidan9382 (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We should REALLY add where these conspiracies are coming from...
Right-wing? Antivaxxers are for sure rightists.

Left-wing? They might not cause diseases, but they certainly want to profit off the tragedy. Billionaire pharma people made millions when their loyal ally Trump announced Warp Speed. Not like money is good for your mental stability.

Seriously, we need to have a dichotomy between what a company wants and can do from what it is doing. Western Progressivist (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For origin, I suspect the horseshoe theory applies; but in any case we'd need sources. Bon courage (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)