Big Pharma conspiracy theory
Big Pharma conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories which claim that the medical establishment in general and pharmaceutical companies in particular, especially the large ones, operate for sinister purposes and against the public good.
History and definitionEdit
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".
The conspiracy 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:
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.
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 cureEdit
The idea that big pharma has a cure for cancer and is 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.
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 conspiracy 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.
- Blaskiewicz, Robert (2013). "The Big Pharma conspiracy theory". Medical Writing. 22 (4): 259. doi:10.1179/2047480613Z.000000000142.
- Dunning, Brian (September 19, 2017). "Skeptoid #589: The Big Pharma Conspiracy". Skeptoid. Retrieved 25 June 2018.
- Novella, Steven (22 April 2010). "Demonizing 'Big Pharma'". Science-Based Medicine.
- Tait, Amelia. ""They're turning the frogs gay": the psychology behind internet conspiracy theories". newstatesman.com. Retrieved 25 June 2018.
- Michael Shermer, "Cures and Cons: Natural scams "he" doesn't want you to know about," Scientific American, March 2006.
- Schaffer, A. (2006). "Drug trials and error: conspiracy theories about big pharma would amuse, if they were not a matter of life and death". MIT Technology Review. 109 (2): 70, May 1. (subscription required)
- Nattrass, N.; Kalichman, S. (2009). Denying AIDS: conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and human tragedy. Springer. p. 183. ISBN 9780387794754.
- Gansler, Ted; Henley, S. Jane; Stein, Kevin; Nehl, Eric J.; Smigal, Carol; Slaughter, Edwin (2005). "Sociodemographic determinants of cancer treatment health literacy". Cancer. Wiley. 104 (3): 653–660. doi:10.1002/cncr.21194. ISSN 0008-543X.
- Bernstein, Jake. "How Big Pharma Holds Back in the War on Cancer". thedailybeast.com. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
- Roos, Dave. "Is There a Hidden Cure for Cancer?". howstuffworks.com. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
- Childs, Oliver (24 March 2014). "Don't believe the hype – 10 persistent cancer myths debunked". Cancer Research UK. Retrieved 27 April 2019.
- Maron, Dina Fine. "Can We Truly "Cure" Cancer?". scientificamerican.com. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
- Novella, Steven. "ANOTHER CURE FOR CANCER?". skepticblog.org. Retrieved 25 June 2018.
- "Orphan Drug Act of 1983" (PDF). US Food and Drug Administration. 4 January 1983. Retrieved 27 October 2015.
- Radford, Benjamin. "Big Pharma Conspiracy Debunked". centerforinquiry.org. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
- Machado, G. C.; Maher, C. G.; Ferreira, P. H.; Pinheiro, M. B.; Lin, C.-W. C.; Day, R. O.; McLachlan, A. J.; Ferreira, M. L. (31 March 2015). "Efficacy and safety of paracetamol for spinal pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo controlled trials". BMJ. BMJ. 350 (mar31 2): h1225–h1225. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1225. ISSN 1756-1833.
- Grimes, David Robert (26 January 2016). Bauch, Chris T. (ed.). "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs". PLOS ONE. Public Library of Science (PLoS). 11 (1): e0147905. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147905. ISSN 1932-6203.
- Berezow, Alex. "Maths study shows conspiracies 'prone to unravelling'". BBC. Science and Environment. Retrieved 25 June 2018.