Talk:Big Pharma conspiracy theories

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2022

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

done. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The article needs more work; but a section on COVID (given the prominence of such conspiracies in that context) seems appropriate per WP:SUMMARY RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

So what would you suggest? "Large pharmaceutical corporation conspiracy theories" ? The term used by the conspiracists is the intentionally derogatory term. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

How about just "Big Pharma"? Or to make it clearer as a specific term, "Big Pharma (word)"/"Big Pharma (term)"? Vc06697 (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not about the term, it's about the conspiracy theory/theories. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

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

"Big Pharma" is generally a very POV term Yes, that fact is connected with the fact that there are conspiracy theories about it.

the most common use of "conspiracy theory" (including in this article) is to disparage criticism That is what conspiracy theorists usually say who call their conspiracy theories "criticism". I don't think there are any reliable sources agreeing with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: Opioid Crisis a Conspiracy Too...

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

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

Relevancy of Donald Trump

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

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