Jump to content

Talk:Big Pharma conspiracy theories

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


Problem regarding the head title, and too COVID-centric?

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

This article has an identity crisis and two terms in the title contribute to the problem. Plus each of the terms has it's own problems. "Big Pharma" is generally a very POV term. And the most common use of "conspiracy theory" (including in this article) is to disparage criticism which does not allege a conspiracy and which usually is not a "theory" but rather a "take"/spin on established events/facts. My advice is figure out exactly what you want to cover and then select a suitable title. North8000 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I too have a problem with the lead paragraph. My edits to address this were reverted. I had added this text to clarify that sometimes Pharma firms do not act in the interest of society, so not all allegations that they don’t are conspiracy theories. I think I will start a new thread when I can on these topics as they seem off topic to the original post. I will just say that I more or less agree with @Nemo bis’s point about shareholder capitalism. I apologize if the following is too “forumy,” but I think it’s useful for context. NB, this is just for context here for those (the vast majority of people) who don’t have a very solid understanding of how corps work and why they act as they do; NB also I don’t want to insert text to this effect into the article.
I went to Gtown law school and used to work as a corporate lawyer (my Dad too and he also used to work as a lawyer at FDA). C corporations (all public corporations such as Big Pharma are C corps) are *compelled* by two factors to seek the *maximum* possible profit: (1) the market for corporate control- ie corporate raiders and (2) corporate law, which has softened marginally over the decades, but essentially still requires corporate directors to pursue the *maximum* possible profit or the shareholders can mount a shareholder derivative suit to hold each director *personally* liable for the shortfall. For both of these reasons, corporations, including Pharma corps, are compelled to behave in a profit-seeking fashion to the exclusion- at least theoretically- of all considerations that would reduce (essentially short-term) profit. As one law professor has said “a corporation is a cost-externalizing machine like a shark is a killing machine; it can’t not act that way because that is entirely what it is designed to do.” FYI, The books and films The Corporation (and it’s sequel/follow up) are excellent introductions to this topic for laypeople by a well-regarded Corporate Law prof. JustinReilly (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage you see the issue regarding the definition of what a conspiracy is and what not. It's just too much dependent on interpretation and even by the source authors it's interpretation.
And sometimes even nonsense stuff gets revealed as real, so how do we draw the thin line? Without stigma but by pointing out that something is crazy, not verifiable, a balant lie and only what we describe as "conspiracy theory".
The baseline and test for that should be really high and at best not or least possible conflicting with other concepts and mindsets. So we avoid a stigma before we have additional information and to keep a check even on reliable sources.
It's also important to keep a check on the external influence and pressure to such a definition. Nobody should unilaterally claim that definition and scope, and no one should escape from it. The same way nobody should exploit it to advance own interests.
Should be understandable. HubertSchuf (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevancy of Donald Trump

[edit]

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

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

Broken archives

[edit]

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

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

We should REALLY add where these conspiracies are coming from...

[edit]

Right-wing? Antivaxxers are for sure rightists.

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

Seriously, we need to have a dichotomy between what a company wants and can do from what it is doing. Western Progressivist (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For origin, I suspect the horseshoe theory applies; but in any case we'd need sources. Bon courage (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is deviating from the origina of Big Pharmy and classifies everything that criticizes "the" Pharma Industry

[edit]
Thanks but Wikipedia is not a forum (WP:NOTFORUM). If there is a concrete proposal for an improvement to the article, make it in a new section with sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Of course, there are real world and very humane processes within the Pharma Industry. The Problem is that Big Pharma is a term that describes not only the major companies but also the industry and it's side-effects. Major news and scientists are using the term to indicate that the major industry companies misusing their power or trying to defy or avoid regulation on them.

For example, I am working currently on the Opioid Crisis Waves and it's history, including regulatory failure etc. A tiny summary.

Before the Opioid Crisis´ first wave British Imperialism destroyed China in the forgotten Opium Wars. The Chinese very old administration refused to comply with the British demand, which was to allow imports of Opium from India and other British colonies. The Chinese Administration back then understood the risk, as they had many addicts on their shores. After destroying the British Opium, even from British Ships, and not complying with the British demands, the Brits used force to destroy the old, not yet industrialized, tradition oriented China, which they summarize as "If you're backwards, you take a beating".

Before 1976 there were laws that prohibited the spreading of Opioids and medical products needed clearance or approval by the United States FDA and FTC. In 1976 onwards, after approval, Big Pharma(!) like Purdue Pharma aka Mundipharma (Sackler's family), Johnson & Johson (we know them already) and McKesson, Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen etc. promoted Purdue's product OxyContin or Oxymorphon, other brands and other generics. Albeit them being basically Heroin or Fentanyl so very addictive, they were promoted as easy pain reliever or pain killer for everyone to doctors and others via aggressive marketing campaigns. Therefore doctors unknowingly of the actual risk of addiction, as it was downplayed to less than 1% by Big Pharma, were prescribing it to literally all patients without hesitation, causing thousands of addicts in the last decades and even more deaths, initiating the first wave of the Opioid Crisis.

The Opioid Crisis and it's waves led to the most silent deaths and horrible tragedies, next to little COVID and other pandemics. Destroying decades of Humanity, and very fine individuals. Leading to the last wave, where synthetic drugs taking over the old illegal drug markets, causing a even worse pandemic of addiction, Stigma and deaths.

So the lack of regulation (or over and under regulation) by the control authorities are part of the legit Big Pharma stories. The same as the Boeing Max accidents/incidents were a result of regulative failures (lack of oversight). Funny enough, same happened during COVID, as Astrazeneca's vaccacine caused too many heart issues for young people, and was therefore very late taken from the market (it was literally reported in major news but I know they try to hide/downplay that fact).

We need to use the term "Big Pharma" in our research and scientific processes but this Wikipedia Article depicts it as we would spread conspiracy theories, despite it's the factual truth. HubertSchuf (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also mentioned the context in Pharma Industry HubertSchuf (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly take a look at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/food-and-drug-administration-overdose-prevention-framework/timeline-selected-fda-activities-and-significant-events-addressing-substance-use-and-overdose and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK458654/
I love how they conflict, FDA says it approved fentanyl the first time in 1987 (despite society's opioids use before) and that they approved oxycodone only in Dec 1995. Despite according to the other source they already approved short-living opioids in the 1960s and 1970s.
Uh no. This article is about conspiracy theories to do with 'big pharma' (an amorphous entity comprised on govt, industry and other malign players supposedly in cahoots). So conspiracy theories go here (e.g. Bill Gates & Big Pharma are attempting population control via chips in vaccines). Legitimate, non-insane, criticism of the pharmaceutical industry (of which there is plenty) goes to pharmaceutical industry. Bon courage (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage Please excuse my late reply.
"an amorphous entity comprised on govt, industry and other malign players supposedly in cahoots" - which is not a conspiracy, that's how they worked, the same applies to the boeing case, reported by major news (reliable sources).
Big Pharma and Pharma Industry is at that point identical. Though one can argue how close the cooperation or corruption between FTC/FDA and Pharma is.
> Conspiracy theories go here (e.g. Bill Gates & Big Pharma are attempting population control via chips in vaccines). Legitimate, non-insane, criticism of the pharmaceutical industry (of which there is plenty) goes to pharmaceutical
Yes but the issue with the Opioid crisis is not mentioned there, and this article does not point to both, or at least as @MrOllie pointed out the top level article / hierachy.
Which is also confusing as the term Big Pharma is used by fine, major news (reliable sources), in the context of manipulation of markets, corruption and all the other criticism (as in ethics, market monopoly, etc etc). So naturally one will search for Big Pharma in relation to the Pharma Industry, which are in the news essentially the same.
Big Pharma is also used by us in science. We do not write Pharma Industry.
I agree that conspiracy theories like:
  • population-control aka Bill Gates & Big Pharma are wanting to decimate the population via chips in vaccines
  • COVID vaccs would contain chips
  • COVID vaccs or COVID (from labs) are just to decimiate the world population (as it couldn't carry us)
are non-sense.
But a source can not (even a reliable one) reliably tell if something is non-sense. So we get in a conflict here.
What's for sure, that Bill Gates made huge investments (good predictive analysis + intelligence?) before, after and during Corona, he used his good connections in politics, economy and various industries. But everything beyond that is more-likely a conspiracy theory. HubertSchuf (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't read again
  • You failed to acknowledge the lacking linking
  • You failed to explain what your approach regarding the classification as conspiracy theory is, and critically assess it
The major news using the term "Big Pharma" not in a conspiracy context, instead they tell the Sackler's and Purdue Pharma story. But this is not covered by your conspiracy article. The important distinction.
Also Wikipedia introduces the artificial distinction between Big Pharma and Pharma Industry, and relies on the definition you just gave but that's only Wikipedia, so it conflicts with the WP:BIGMISTAKE description. In fact: you are committing a Bigmistake by even having this article.
I don't waste my time with you anymore. People can read and if they are a bit more intellectually working they will understand and eventually fix the article. HubertSchuf (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note on your WP:Bigmistake article, which is misleading as it's not part of the official guideline. User talk:Bon courage/The big mistake#Your definition and description is wrong in some cases
> Some are on the topic of Big Pharma conspiracy theories; they are reflected here
This article does not even reflect a percentage of those suiting. And the article does not differentiate between the real stories and the rubbish that you correctly pointed out. That's why the article still needs to link.
You argument conflicts where you say "Truth TM" but you claim the truth on your own, by hiding behind sources, despite you interpret whether they are suited or not. So you are making the decisions and you are hiding (or showing) truth. It's not hard to understand that logically.
  • Hatnote is still pointing to Pharma Industry and it's is still not showing Opioid Crisis with relation to Big Pharma / the Pharma Industry.
  • The Hatnote should link (as I've mentioned multiple times) to the top term, so people can choose from the list. Maybe as a second hatnote entry.
  • Article should clarify what crazy non-sense conspiracy theories are included
  • Article should clarify what is not meant, and what are some "real conspiracy theories" (pointing to the article e.g. Opioid Crisis and Pharma Industry)
HubertSchuf (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly the Opioid epidemic article does only mention
> Between 1991 and 2011, painkiller prescriptions in the U.S. tripled from 76 million to 219 million per year, and as of 2016 more than 289 million prescriptions were written for opioid drugs per year. This was exacerbated by the aggressive and misleading marketing of drug makers, e.g. Purdue Pharma. Purdue trained its sales representatives to convey to doctors that the risk of addiction from OxyContin was "less than one percent."
There is so much more about it, and it connects to "Big Pharma" and the Pharma industry as well. HubertSchuf (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about conspiracy theories. I don't know how else to say it. Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sry mate I did not receive / read your comment before I had posted that.
Three counter-arguments to your argument that the article is only about "conspiracies" (what ever they are):
  • We (as in science or media) use the term "Big Pharma" for both, nobody uses "pharmaceutical industry" (it's too long, doesn't make sense and disconnects the both related topics, or better to say the three)
  • The problem is until the court verdicts and settlements in 2019, and in the view of e.g. the Sackler's family it's still a conspiracy. So you would need a mechanism that clearly distinguishes between conspiracy and whatever you see as non-conspiracy.
  • The "Big Pharma" / Pharma Industry actually conspired to aggressively marketing their products and hide the truth that their products are more than 1% addicting (see above)
So yes this is certainly connected to this article and you haven't shown a clear distinction between the two, which would be my next critique. HubertSchuf (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is: if it's a conspiracy theory, it belongs here; if it ain't it does't. There's even a hatnote on the article for the confused. Bon courage (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage This does not refute my central point. Opioid Crisis is still not mentioned, and it's heavily intersected between conspiracy theory ("Big Pharma" - term used by the media and science) and "real-story" (whatever and whoever decides what's real and what's not real). And the hatnote does not show a clear distinction between the two, yet alone the average user won't be able to distinguish between that artificial distinction. HubertSchuf (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh and btw: it's not even mentioned in the pharma industry article... HubertSchuf (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The average reader will have looked up and noticed the title of this page: "Big Pharma conspiracy theories", and realized that this article is only about the conspiracy theories. You're in the wrong place, HubertSchuf. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie Or the average reader searches for "Big Pharma", lands here, understands Wikipedia seems to classify everything related to that term as "conspiracy theory" (what the title indicates).
Then the tiny hatnote will be going unnoticed by the reader and the reader leaves the page, remaining confused, trying another search.
I've also pointed out the other points of critique, with a linking to this talk point; Talk:Opioid epidemic#The article should be linked with other articles closely related to the subject HubertSchuf (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone searching for "Big Pharma" will end up at Big Pharma, not here. Again: You are in the wrong place. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I ended up here. HubertSchuf (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you did, but we should not change the scope of this article because you clicked on the wrong link. MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop changing your argument when being wrong. Get to the core of my arguments, instead of spreading noise.
First of all, I clicked on the first link, as I was curious what Wiki writes about it. That's how the average people do it, more tech savy (like us) ofc iterate more through it. But Wiki is not made for the tech people, it's for everyone.
The scope of the article does not need to be changed. A brief introduction about the Opioid Crisis and the overlap between conspiracy theory and reality should be fine (see below). A link to the overview article. HubertSchuf (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The core of your arguments are misplaced: You're in a Wendy's asking why we're not willing to retread your tires. MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you failed to acknowledge the core arguments, you did not read them or you failed to understand them. Otherwise you would not make up that stupid accusation (multiple times).
Another user understood the connection immediately and there are multiple things I have pointed out, but you still failed to acknowledge them. Lacking reading ability, intellectual capacity, (wrong) interest or something else is going on, on your side. HubertSchuf (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read your arguments, you're arguing about things that have nothing to do with this page. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think you read it, your replies are too superficial. Otherwise explain to us what you understood or what those "things" are. HubertSchuf (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to fill this page with a paraphrase of your irrelevancies. MrOllie (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you haven't read nor understood it. Thanks for the proof.
Did I tell you this behave conflicts with Wikipedia rules? HubertSchuf (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just reading a bit above, other users' pointed out the issue with the label "conspiracy theory" as well - but even if you stay with your artificial distinction...
  • You may still mention conspiracy theories around the related Opioid Crisis and the Big Pharma term in that relation
Keep in mind in the overview/listing article you've linked to "Big Pharma", Conspiracy theories is the first bullet point, which gives a non-techy savy reader the impression that the major media term would only be used by conspiracy theorists, despite we in science and media use it perfectly fine as well.
neither the title, nor the content, nor the hatnote clarifies about how that distinction is made and why - just another point. And how it ensures that a legit story is not wrongly classified as Conspiracy just because of the enthusiasm of one of your writers or lack of education
A brief introduction about the Opioid Crisis and the overlap between conspiracy theory and reality should be fine (see below) and a link to the overview article should be fine HubertSchuf (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage just read what I've written here, if you're able to HubertSchuf (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the artitcle is baased on a brief articler written by a writer for the pharmaceuticsl industry, Under the criteria in his article, the claim that Purdue was motivted by profit is itself a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idk about the author but exactly, the claim that Purdue was motivated by profit (or even incorporated aggressive marketing) or the FTC/FDA or any other gov org failed to monitor / regulate is in itself a conspiracy. HubertSchuf (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The opioid crisis is a real thing, not a conspiracy theory; it does not belong here. This is a page for conspiracy theories. I don't know any more ways to say it. It's in the title; it's in the hatnote; it's in the content. Bon courage (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but have you even read the critique? I think you lack of understanding at this point. First of all there ARE conspiracy theories around it, secondly the article does not clarify about the overlap, albeit the article mentions it. So your argument does not refute the central point of the whole argumentation. When do you start to respect the basic rules of discourse? HubertSchuf (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
neither the title, nor the content, nor the hatnote clarifies about how that distinction is made and why - just another point. And how it ensures that a legit story is not wrongly classified as Conspiracy just because of the enthusiasm of one of your writers or lack of education. HubertSchuf (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is in the words "conspiracy theory". This article is about conspiracy theories (as it says). If you want to add conspiracy theories, here is the place! Bon courage (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see are you even reading what peeps write? Otherwise you would respond a bit more on point and related to WHAT someone says.
Like I have said, there's an overlap between conspiracy theories, big pharma, opioid crisis, the sackler's family (either depicted as evil or as saint) AND the media narratives, and the scientific evidence.
We still haven't seen a link towards Opioid Crisis and the related conspiracy around it, maybe you want to introduce it. HubertSchuf (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and you have not replied yet WHO decides what a conspiracy theory is and what not. What's your guide line to it, in your own words. I believe I should not read your posts anymore, as you are not doing so with mine. HubertSchuf (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources decide. Wikipedia has articles which have headwords, and the content needs to be managed. In the case of 'overlap' hatnotes are used to point the reader in the right direction. What we have here is good in all these respects. Bon courage (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatnote does not point to Big Pharma (the top term), it points to Pharma Industry but Pharma Industry has no linkage to Opioid Crisis, despite the First Wave was/is caused by the industry
  • Article does not provide a linkage towards the terms used within the Opioid Crisis (or variants of it)
  • Article provides no linkage
  • What if a source says it's a conspiracy theory, and another does not?
  • If I see it right, you are just copying the "reliable sources" (what some call mainstream media) if we do so, what if mainstream media is paid by pharma (now we get into the conspiracy theory section), to classify (almost) everything anti-pharma as conspiracy theory (funny enough that could be one of their real marketing and pr strategies)
It is good for you in these respects but for me as reader and as author it is not. Like for other people who have already pointed out the issue. HubertSchuf (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what if mainstream media is paid by pharma ← Sounds like you're propounding a conspiracy theory! Wikipedia is - by design - just a reflection of mainstream sources. If you want to reveal some deep conspiracy or something maybe try social media or blogging? Anyway, in the absence of any worthy proposal I suggest we are done here. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage i even said in the quotes that it would be entering the realm of speculation and conspiracy theory. You should really read more close.
But you've even proven my fear that you are more-likely to jump on someone's description to accuse them of making up or spreading conspiracy theories. Kinda buys into your confirmation bias.
Maybe you can then add those theories to the article, as they are common.
But actually that's exactly what they did in the Opioid Crisis, they want to doctors and media to advertise/show their products in a certain way (a aggressive marketing strategy), so that people look less on the risks. The same against regulators, and even giving them money or fooling them, to be less strict or give approvals. And that's the problem all that happened and it's not a conspiracy.
The conspiracy starts when people depict people and bringing up false claims or if they accuse the industry as working under one hood, which is in a competitive market impossible - except if we see them as large monopoly (like the GAFA - US gov connection). HubertSchuf (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also you haven't read again: I am a scientist in that sense, and I am working on scientific papers. I do not need a blog. I want the article to correctly show the truth but the truth is only partially touched in the article. And if you present conspiracy theories, add the common ones. HubertSchuf (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Wikipedia has a lot of editors turning up with The Truth™. Instead, the Project follows reliable sources. Some are on the topic of Big Pharma conspiracy theories; they are reflected here. Job done. Bon courage (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note on your WP:Bigmistake article, which is misleading as it's not part of the official guideline. User talk:Bon courage/The big mistake#Your definition and description is wrong in some cases
> Some are on the topic of Big Pharma conspiracy theories; they are reflected here
This article does not even reflect a percentage of those suiting. And the article does not differentiate between the real stories and the rubbish that you correctly pointed out. That's why the article still needs to link.
You argument conflicts where you say "Truth TM" but you claim the truth on your own, by hiding behind sources, despite you interpret whether they are suited or not. So you are making the decisions and you are hiding (or showing) truth. It's not hard to understand that logically.
  • Hatnote is still pointing to Pharma Industry and it's is still not showing Opioid Crisis with relation to Big Pharma / the Pharma Industry.
  • The Hatnote should link (as I've mentioned multiple times) to the top term, so people can choose from the list. Maybe as a second hatnote entry.
  • Article should clarify what crazy non-sense conspiracy theories are included
  • Article should clarify what is not meant, and what are some "real conspiracy theories" (pointing to the article e.g. Opioid Crisis and Pharma Industry)
HubertSchuf (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hiding behind sources 'Hiding behind sources' is the foundation of Wikipedia. See WP:V, WP:NOR. If you are unwilling to accept that Wikipedia editing may not be for you. MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While you rely on sources, it does not mean you are allowed to let the sources blindly guide you. You are also not allowed to restrict it to your truth (which would be selective bias). You still have to verify and contextualize. Context is given by the author (and maybe another source). Everything else would be the dissemination of fake news, something that you try to oppose. HubertSchuf (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry is there any point to this? This is WP:NOTAFORUM. If there is a proposal for an actual change, let it be stated (with appropriate sources of course). Bon courage (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bon, I proposed the changes (quite a few times) here: Talk:Big Pharma conspiracy theories#c-HubertSchuf-20240920182900-HubertSchuf-20240920181600
and in my initial post. Feel free to share your thought.
Nothing indicates it would be a forum, nor is anyone talking about that. HubertSchuf (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and here Talk:Big Pharma conspiracy theories#c-HubertSchuf-20240920182600-Bon courage-20240920181800 HubertSchuf (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no discernible proposal and no source(s) there. Without those, this is just a waste of time and should be closed. Bon courage (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copy & Paste:
  • Hatnote is still pointing to Pharma Industry and it's is still not showing Opioid Crisis with relation to Big Pharma / the Pharma Industry.
  • The Hatnote should link (as I've mentioned multiple times) to the top term, so people can choose from the list. Maybe as a second hatnote entry.
  • Article should clarify what crazy non-sense conspiracy theories are included
  • Article should clarify what is not meant, and what are some "real conspiracy theories" (pointing to the article e.g. Opioid Crisis and Pharma Industry)
HubertSchuf (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still no sources. The opioid crisis is irrelevant here so is not mentioned. Disambiguation pages should generally not be linked to per WP:INTDAB. You requests to add "clarity" needs to specify what sources have that "clarity" so Wikipedia can cite and summarize them. Bon courage (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think my critique is about "sources", so what are you asking for?
"opioid crisis is irrelevant" - yet again: Big Pharma is the term that is used in connection with Pharma Industry and Opioid Crisis, by media and science.
You still do not clarify the exact criteria what are conspiracy theories around "Big Pharma" for you and what not. So that needs clarification, how do you want to do it by a source, if it's your decision what you include and reject. So that's unclear to me.
"specify what sources have that "clarity" so Wikipedia can cite and summarize them"
I do not think you can fix the article's lacking linkage by just throwing sources in. I do not think that is how it works. If you really need one because you are stubborn in that sense, just craft a source and include it :D
But i did not perceive you as stubborn so you might want to understand what I have said.
As indicated before a simple fix could be linking to the "Big Pharma" term that was allegedly the first entry in the Search Engines. HubertSchuf (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just one of many sources that one can find: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/opioid-manufacturer-purdue-pharma-pleads-guilty-fraud-and-kickback-conspiracies
Not a conspiracy theory, it's a real conspiracy by the Pharma Lobby/Industry/"Big Pharma" or whatever you call them. HubertSchuf (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not "Big Pharma". It is "Big Pharma conspiracy theories". You are like somebody going to our Grape nuts article and insisting we write about grapes and nuts there. You have latched on to a certain substring in the article title, but that substring is not the topic of the article (which is: a certain kind of conspiracy theories). Bon courage (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I proposed a simple fix in form of linking the Big Pharma term in the hatnote, right?
Look into this:
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition/what-big-pharma-accusation-gets-right-and-wrong-about-drug-industry
How would you classify that source? Primary, but it makes references to primary, so it's secondary? Independent? I mean it has a balanced view and does not lean to a specific side.
So if the substring is not part of the content, then I do not understand why you include it at all, right?
But this leans more towards a forum discussion and approach, which you wanted to avoid, right?
So why we can't just link the Big Pharma term in the hatnote, so that people can simply be lead to there and it's fine?
You should add a distinction between the conspiracy theories, their definition in your article, and Big Pharma as general term for the Pharma Industry (by science and media).
Here a few sources that Media, even the industry, and science Big Pharma are using the term (also als reference to illicit practices by the Pharma industry):
At this point you should overthink whether Big Pharma is misplaced in the headline and improve the article's understandability.
I do not think I have to prove it further! HubertSchuf (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a middling source, but we make many of its points in the article already. There is nothing to fix. More conspiracy stuff here is great, for other things (not conspiracy stuff) look elsewhere. Bon courage (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so please point me to the location in the article (e.g. by linking or quoting) where you clearly define what the conspiracy theory of this article is.
Show me where the hatnote points to the Big Pharma thread.
Where does the article distinct between "Big Pharma" as conspiracy term and "Big Pharma" as official term used by literally everyone? HubertSchuf (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe

"Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacologists, biochemists, immunologists, geneticists and journalists are not to be trusted. They are all on the take"

but there is more in our History and definitions section. Bon courage (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial sentences are those:

Big Pharma conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories that claim that pharmaceutical companies as a whole, especially big corporations, act in dangerously secretive and sinister ways that harm patients."

Well they actually did that during the Opioid Crisis, in attempts to increase the profit they systematically marketed opioids to be used and described when someone has no real severe injuries or other indications. Is that a conspiracy theory or is it not according to your article?

"Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacologists, biochemists, immunologists, geneticists and journalists are not to be trusted. They are all on the take"

That's a kind of definition which I like to criticize as it does not differentiate between valid criticism of Professionals vs. conspiracy thought.
How can we agree on a more robust definition that includes what we think about it by saying what we think about it?
I thought about the term "unfounded" for a second or "without valid reason to think so" or smth. like that. But that would introduce a lot of space for people who are already into conspiracy theories, as they find everything convincing and reasonable what they read on "trash sources" (yk). HubertSchuf (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see you point. Some of our American editors get hung up on certain regulatory failures in their country (not really 'sinister' - just companies will make profits where they can if dumb govts let them). This is an article about conspiracy theories. Material on that is welcome. If you have something saying "The opioid crisis is the conspiracy theory that's true!" that would be useful. But we cannot base content on editors' original thinking. Bon courage (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history section should clarify between valid criticism and real circumstances and the conspiracy thinking. So be a bit more objectively. That's exactly my point that I am addressing (among the lacking linkage).
So is someone using the term now a conspiracy theorist or is the person not? As proven above by introducing the sources, not everyone who talks about "Big Pharma" demonizes the Pharma Industry. That they work in a huge cartel like system, manipulate people and market is nothing new nor fancy (see Origins of the Opioid Crisis). HubertSchuf (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Valid' criticism belongs at Pharmaceutical industry#Controversies for example, but not here. This is an article about conspiracy theories: the clue's in the title. Bon courage (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not writtenly and objectively differentiate between valid criticism and conspiracy thought WITHIN your article.
That was my point that you say you did not understand.
Big Pharma's misconduct is the same regularity failures that contributed to the Max crashes, as someone who is working in research on it, and reading all relevant sources around it, I come to that conclusion as well. I see can the "pattern".
Like I have said, you confuse the reader by not differentiating by the usage of the Big Pharma term, you immediately throw it into the Conspiracy box without a more objective definition of the conspiracy term, also paying attention to the media, science and industry use of the term.
A editor is clearly allowed to differentiate and contextualize using the already existent quotes in the article. I do not see a huge problem with that. Defacto that's how articles are written on Wiki. HubertSchuf (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do in fact mention this, citing S Novella

Steven 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.

This is a page for the overblown attacks, other places on Wikipedia are for the 'justly deserved criticism'. Different articles treat different topics. Bon courage (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's at the bottom of the article, thus misplaced. It must be moved to the top in my opinion. As the reader perceives it as introduction in the first 160-300 words. HubertSchuf (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to judge where exactly to hat a discussion going off the rails, but my best estimate is that here is where it jumped the shark.--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie While your link is right, how you understand it is not correct. Wikipedia should not hide a half of the truth by saying it was somehow given by the sources. Instead it must show transparency (that's for what we have the Talk section) why some sources included (or in some cases excluded) or a "truth" is not represented.
If you are unwilling to accept that basic principle of Wikipedia, and instead hide behind your interpretation and classification of sources, I can not help you.
But that's not a neutral point of view nor without conflicting interest, if you hide a core aspect of a topic just because you say "the sources"... (if they're unreliable fine, but we are talking about mainstream media here)
Hence, you still haven't addressed the core points of my argumentation, what's the rationale behind it? Too scared to improve something? HubertSchuf (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'core points' of your argumentation have nothing to do with this article or Wikipedia policies. There's nothing relevant to address. MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've been on Wikipedia for a while, I am confident that I understand these policies very well, you will not convince me that they mean something different than what their text plainly states. MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't even understand a simple argumentation because you do not even read. So how do you want to judge anything of that?
I think you lack a lot of capabilities and a open mind, which is not only toxic but a violation of Wikipedia rules, so be happy you are not immediately reported, as troll. HubertSchuf (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks (see WP:NPA) will not get me to come around to your point of view either. MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no personal attack, so stop crying and start reading. HubertSchuf (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harassing me on my user talk won't help either. MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Factual statement; not harassment, and I think others should know. It's your action, so take responsibility. Furthermore I am curious why you shy away by deleting it. HubertSchuf (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW dragging this from your Talk page into here, is not only off-topic it violates a whole stack of rules as well. HubertSchuf (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm violating a 'whole stack of rules' WP:ANI is thataway. MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop spamming this discussion page with your individual matters, that are off-topic. HubertSchuf (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, my friend. MrOllie (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RFC / Improvement idea, hatnote, Big Pharma term in question, better definition of the included conspiracy theories

[edit]

As I have written before, the readers are confused by the term Big Pharma. Google or other Search Engines place this article at the top instead of the summary article. Sure, it also depends on the region and other factors.

I recommend to modify the hatnote to also lead to the "Big Pharma" term in general. Instead of just leading to the Pharma Industry term.

I recommend adding a distinction between the conspiracy theories, their definition in your article, and Big Pharma as general term for the Pharma Industry (by science and media).

Currently, the distinction must be read with a lot of effort and is, like the definition of conspiracy theories and legitimate critique of the Pharma Industry/Big Pharma or New Pharma, spread across the article and really hard to find. I would recommend to move the whole definition closer to the top within the first 160-400 words.

Here a few sources of major and serious Media ("best sources"), the industry, and science are using "Big Pharma" as regular term for the industry (but also in reference to illicit practices by the Pharma industry):

With regard to the original connotation of "Big Pharma" I would recommend to remove it from the title and rename it to conspiracy theories about the Pharma Industry, and then adding a subsection that explains the misuse of the "Big Pharma" term for depicting the industry as organized pure evil monopoly.

I hope this RFC is better for discussion and forming consensus. HubertSchuf (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theories&oldid=1247853194"