Big Pharma conspiracy theory

This article is about a left-wing political term. For the pharmaceutical industry in general, see Pharmaceutical industry.

Big Pharma conspiracy theory is a pejorative and generally politically loaded term which has been used by pro-pharmaceutical critics, most of whom are on the political left, as an argued form of ad hominem to silence opponents who claim that the medical establishment in general and pharmaceutical companies in particular, especially the large ones such as Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Johnson & Johnson, operate for sinister purposes and against the public good. The term has been used for many years, though it became noticeably more mainstream during the 2010s. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, it has very widely been used in both mainstream and alternative sources, either as a pejorative or as genuine criticism of the pharmaceutical industry.

History and definition

The term Big Pharma is used to refer collectively to the global pharmaceutical industry. According to Steve Novella, the term has come to connote a demonized form of the pharmaceutical industry. Professor of writing Robert Blaskiewicz has written that conspiracy theorists use 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".

According to Blaskiewicz, the Big Pharma conspiracy theory has four classic traits: first, the assumption that the conspiracy is perpetrated by a small malevolent cadre; secondly, the belief that the public at large is ignorant of the truth; thirdly, that its believers treat lack of evidence as evidence; and finally, that the arguments deployed in support of the theory are irrational, misconceived or otherwise mistaken.

In a New Statesman article, Robert Bartholomew, a sociologist specializing in mass hysteria, observes that although conspiracy theories have always been around, social media enables them to spread faster and have more staying power since it's far easier for people to construct their own version of reality through social media. In the same article, Mike Woods, a psychologist specializing in online conspiracy theory techniques, points to alienation, a lack of control, and a sense of uncertainty about the world as common traits of conspiratorial thinkers. He goes on to say that “basically conspiracy theories are a way to try and make sense of the world that in that moment doesn’t particularly make sense” and that lets the theorists "allege that things that are happening are basically controllable".

Manifestations

The theory has a variety of different specific manifestations. Each has different narratives, but they always cast "Big Pharma" as the villain of the piece. Some of the most prominent variants include the following:

Alternative treatments

In Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About, Kevin Trudeau proposes that there are all-natural cures for serious illnesses including cancer, herpes, arthritis, AIDS, acid reflux disease, various phobias, depression, obesity, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, attention deficit disorder, muscular dystrophy, and that these are all being deliberately hidden and suppressed from the public by the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, and the major food and drug companies.

HIV/AIDS

In a 2006 column for Harper's Magazine, journalist Celia Farber claimed that the antiretroviral drug nevirapine was part of a conspiracy by the "scientific-medical complex" to spread toxic drugs. Farber said that AIDS is not caused by HIV and that nevirapine had been unethically administered to pregnant women in clinical trials, leading to a fatality. Farber's theories and claims were refuted by scientists, but, according to Seth Kalichman, the resulting publicity represented a breakthrough moment for AIDS denialism.

Hidden cancer cure

The idea that pharmaceutical companies have a cure for cancer and are suppressing it so that they can maintain a profit is believed by as much as 27% of the American public according to a 2005 survey. There is an argument to be made that pharmaceutical companies are slowing down the race for a comprehensive cure by developing high-profit single-purpose treatments rather than focusing on a multilateral approach to the disease; however, the idea that holding back a cure would result in more profit than presenting one is not considered a very strong argument. This manifestation also largely ignores the fact that cancer is not a single disease but instead many and that large strides have been made in the fight against it.

Steven Novella writes, in Skepticblog, about the general misunderstanding and sensationalizing of cancer research that typically accompanies a conspiratorial mindset. He points out that cures for cancer, rather than being hidden, are not the cures they are initially touted to be by the media and either result in a dead end, further research goals, or a decrease in the mortality rate for a specific type of cancer.

Reception

Novella writes that while the pharmaceutical industry has a number of aspects which justly deserve criticism, the "demonization" of it is both cynical and intellectually lazy. He goes on to consider that overblown attacks on Big Pharma actually let the pharmaceutical industry "off the hook" since they distract from and tarnish more considered criticisms.

An argument against the U.S. government taking part in the suppression of cures is the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 wherein incentives are created for developing treatments for disease which the treatments have no profitable outcomes for the companies involved.

A common claim among proponents of the theory is that pharmaceutical companies suppress negative research about their drugs by financially pressuring researchers and journals. There are in fact papers critical of specific drugs published in journals on a regular basis. 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.

In 2016 David Robert Grimes published a research paper elaborating about the mathematical non-viability of conspiracy theories in general. He specifically showed that if there was an actual big pharma conspiracy to conceal a cure for cancer that it would take about 3.2 years for it get exposed due to the sheer number of people required to keep it secret.

See also

• List of conspiracy theories
• List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
• Bad Pharma, a 2012 book by British physician and academic Ben Goldacre
• Big Pharma, a 2006 book by British journalist Jacky Law
• Sicko, a 2007 American documentary film made by Michael Moore
• Vaccine controversies
• Homeopathy