In a Facebook post, evidence-based medicine is portrayed as a system shaped by the interests of the Rockefellers and the pharmaceutical industry, whose alleged goal is not to eliminate the causes of diseases, but to suppress symptoms and keep patients dependent on drugs.
It is also claimed that in the early 20th century, alternative treatment methods were deliberately pushed out by financial leverage, and institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) allegedly operate in the interests of private foundations and the pharmaceutical business.
The post claims that John D. Rockefeller said: “I don’t want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of workers,” and David Rockefeller asserted that “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is a major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
15min examined the falsely disseminated claims related to the Rockefellers.
Claim: “Rockefeller invested in the pharmaceutical industry in the late 19th century and transformed medical science through financial leverage”
Untrue. John Davison Rockefeller amassed his fortune in the oil business – his company “Standard Oil” had achieved a near-monopoly position in the US market by 1882. However, his philanthropic activities in the field of medicine and public health only began in the early 20th century: the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was founded in 1901, the General Education Board in 1902, and the Rockefeller Foundation in 1913.
There is no reliable evidence that J.D. Rockefeller deliberately sought to displace traditional treatment methods in order to expand the market for petroleum-derived medical products.
His financial support for medical schools coincided more with the broader shift in medicine at the time towards standardized, research- and evidence-based treatment and physician training.
Conspiracy theorists link J.D. Rockefeller to the German pharmaceutical concern “I.G. Farben”, which had close ties with the Nazi German leadership, exploited concentration camp prisoners for forced labor, and companies associated with the concern also produced chemical warfare agents.
However, the claim that the philanthropist had acquired this concern is not supported by reliable sources. He died in 1937, before the start of World War II, and there is no reliable information that he had bought “I.G. Farben” or another similar German pharmaceutical concern before the war.
Claim: “Many schools practicing natural medicine were closed”
The claim that many schools practicing natural medicine were closed in the early 20th century has some basis, but without broader context, it can be misleading.
Homeopathic and so-called eclectic medical schools did indeed almost disappear over time, but their decline began even before the major medical education reforms. Academic studies show that many such institutions had already faced financial difficulties earlier, so later reforms rather accelerated changes that were already underway.
Moreover, it was not only schools teaching alternative treatment methods that were closed. Many institutions that ceased operations were commercial medical schools that lacked adequate laboratory and clinical facilities.
At that time, medicine in general was rapidly professionalizing: university education, laboratory research, and standardized clinical practice gained increasing importance.
The reforms also had serious negative social consequences – the number of medical schools admitting Black students and women significantly decreased.
This shows that the medical education reform of that time was much broader and more complex than the narrative of an alleged targeted displacement of “natural medicine” suggests.
Claim: “Pharmaceutical monopoly prevents scientific examination of natural methods; natural remedies are censored”
The claim that the pharmaceutical industry allegedly prevents scientific research into natural treatment methods does not correspond to reality.
According to data from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), over $517 million was allocated to research on complementary and alternative medicine in fiscal year 2019 alone.
Such research was funded not only by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), but also by the National Cancer Institute, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and other NIH structures.
Data shows that these areas are not outside the scope of medical science – they are researched, but their effectiveness is evaluated according to the same evidence standards as other treatment methods.
Read more Rheumatologists warn: this “healthy” habit can intensify joint pain
The claim that traditional medicine is allegedly systematically “censored” by international health institutions is also unfounded.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a separate Global Strategy for Traditional Medicine 2025–2034, which continues previous programs in this area. However, WHO emphasizes that neither traditional nor modern medical methods should be recommended solely based on their origin – their safety and effectiveness must be supported by reliable scientific evidence.
Claim: “Little attention is paid to prevention because a healthy person is unprofitable”
Untrue. One of the most striking counter-examples is universal vaccination programs. According to a study initiated by WHO and published in the journal “The Lancet”, vaccinations against 14 infections helped prevent approximately 154 million deaths between 1974 and 2024, of which 146 million were among children under five years of age.
Researchers also calculated that vaccination led to about a 40% reduction in global infant mortality during this period. This shows that disease prevention is not a secondary, but one of the most important directions in modern public health.
Claim: Modern medicine only suppresses symptoms, while “natural medicine” eliminates the true causes of diseases
Such a juxtaposition artificially creates the impression that two completely opposing medical systems exist. In reality, modern medicine relies not only on drugs or surgical interventions – treating and preventing diseases also involves lifestyle changes and physical activity, dietary recommendations, psychological support, physiotherapy, and rehabilitation.
Furthermore, many treatments are designed not to suppress symptoms, but to affect a specific cause or mechanism of the disease: for example, antibiotics treat certain bacterial infections, and in cases of insufficient thyroid activity, levothyroxine replaces the hormone that the body produces too little of.
Claim: “Natural medicine is not patentable, there is no strong lobbying, it does not seek profit”
The market for supplements and complementary health products is also a large commercial sector with its own economic interests.
According to data from a 2016 US national health survey, Americans spent $30.2 billion out of pocket annually on such remedies.
Of this, $14.7 billion was spent on visits to complementary medicine practitioners, and $12.8 billion on natural products and dietary supplements.
The latter amount constituted approximately a quarter of what residents spent on prescription drugs at that time.
Claim: “Allopathic medicine is often ineffective in treating chronic diseases”
One example is coronary heart disease, which is a chronic condition. Scientists analyzing US data, using the validated IMPACT model, estimated that between 1980 and 2000, about 47% of the reduction in coronary heart disease mortality was due to medical and surgical treatment, and another about 44% was due to favorable changes in risk factors, including lower cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and smoking prevalence.
A similar trend was observed in England: between 2000 and 2007, improved treatment explained about 52% of the reduction in coronary heart disease mortality.
The greatest impact came from cholesterol reduction with medication, treatment of chronic angina, and secondary prevention. This shows that in treating chronic diseases, medications, medical interventions, and risk factor reduction are not competing methods – in practice, they complement each other.
15min verdict: false. The narrative about an “allopathic” system created by Rockefeller, which allegedly displaced natural medicine, made patients dependent on drugs, and still suppresses alternative treatments, relies on selectively presented facts, omitted historical context, and unfounded causal links.
There is no reliable evidence that Rockefeller deliberately reformed medicine for his business interests, and modern medicine includes not only drugs and surgery, but also prevention, lifestyle changes, rehabilitation, and other evidence-based methods.
Furthermore, traditional and complementary medicine remedies are not “forbidden” from being researched – they are funded, studied, and evaluated according to the same safety and effectiveness criteria.
The publication was prepared by 15min in cooperation with “Meta”, aiming to curb the spread of misleading news on the social network. More about the program and its rules – here.
Read more This healthy snack silently damages your teeth: dentists warn how to avoid it
