A remarkable study published earlier this year shed further light on a side of the pharma industry that continues to receive remarkably little attention from the mainstream/legacy media: the deliberate use of bribery and other corrupt practices to increase drug sales, influence prescribing, and secure favorable treatment from governments and regulators. Published online by Cambridge University Press in February 2026, the study examined pharmaceutical bribery cases documented in reports from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) covering a period of more than 25 years.

From the reports, which were published between 1999 and 2025, the researchers identified 21 investigations involving 19 pharmaceutical companies. Among the companies explicitly named were some of the world’s biggest drugmakers, including Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Teva, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk.

The findings are difficult to dismiss as the actions of a few rogue employees. According to the researchers, bribery was frequently approved or knowingly tolerated by senior managers, while subsidiaries, third-party vendors, and complicated corporate structures were repeatedly used to conceal payments. The documented bribery schemes lasted an average of almost five years, with the longest continuing for 11 years. In total, the cases involved at least US$12.6 million in identified illicit payments and resulted in more than US$1.1 billion in financial sanctions.

How the Bribery Schemes Worked

The study provides a disturbing catalogue of the methods allegedly used to disguise corrupt payments. Doctors and other healthcare professionals were offered luxury travel, gifts, entertainment, and other benefits. In some cases, pharmaceutical sales representatives carefully monitored doctors’ prescription volumes to determine whether the money and perks were producing the desired return. Novartis, for example, sponsored doctors to attend international congresses but, according to the report examined by the researchers, threatened to withdraw that support if prescription targets were not achieved. Other examples included family holidays, ski trips, sightseeing excursions, and luxury goods.

Perhaps more disturbing was the actual manipulation of medical research. The study identified cases in which supposedly scientific studies were allegedly created primarily as mechanisms for paying doctors. Some were presented as Phase IV, observational or epidemiological research, even though their real purpose was to promote particular drugs or reward doctors who prescribed them. In one case, a clinical study was used to promote Lucentis – a prescription drug injected into the eye that can cost around US$2,000 per dose in the United States – rather than conduct genuine research; in another, payments were channeled through a sham neuroscience study.

Another recurring technique involved employing doctors or government officials as supposed “consultants,” “speakers,” or “Key Opinion Leaders.” The researchers found cases in which individuals received substantial payments for little or no genuine work, with the money recorded as consulting, advisory, or professional fees. In one particularly striking example, a senior Ukrainian health official received US$200,000 a month in supposed consulting fees.

Some of the schemes were even more elaborate. Pharmaceutical companies used distributors, offshore companies, and dummy vendors to conceal payments, while false invoices described the money as being for advertising, storage, marketing, consultancy, or other legitimate services. The researchers cite one case in which Eli Lilly’s Russian operation entered into 96 sham marketing or service agreements with 42 offshore entities, with more than US$11 million ultimately paid to officials.

.

This photo was captured at the intersection of E. McCarty St. and S. Delaware St., Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. The main building of the corporate center campus and fountain is shown in early-evening sunlight. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

.

When Bribery Reaches the Regulators

The implications become particularly serious when corrupt payments were used not merely to encourage doctors to prescribe a particular drug, but to influence the regulatory and purchasing decisions that determine which medicines enter a health system in the first place. The study found cases in which pharmaceutical companies allegedly bribed public officials or used intermediaries to accelerate regulatory approvals, obtain product registrations, or secure contracts with state-run hospitals. Such schemes targeted ministries of health, procurement agencies, and government-run insurance programs.

The researchers also identified pharmaceutical bribery connected with the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program in Iraq. Companies manipulated contract prices and disguised inflated payments as agent commissions, with the excess money ultimately being directed to Iraqi officials. Johnson & Johnson, for example, paid US$857,387 in kickbacks disguised as agent commissions and inflated certain Iraqi contracts by 10 percent. Novo Nordisk paid US$1.44 million and authorized a further US$1.32 million in inflated commissions in connection with such schemes. In another example, Eli Lilly transferred almost US$40,000 to a personal foundation connected to a high-ranking Polish official in return for favorable decisions concerning drug reimbursement.

These are not simply accounting irregularities. If financial inducements influence which medicines doctors prescribe, which drugs governments purchase or which ones receive regulatory approval, then corruption can directly interfere with the operation of healthcare systems.

The Corruption May Be Far Bigger Than Official Figures Suggest

The study’s findings should not be interpreted as representing the full scale of pharmaceutical corruption. The researchers emphasize that their analysis covers only cases that became sufficiently visible to result in official investigations and prosecutions. Companies operating in countries with weaker enforcement, cases resolved confidentially, or corrupt schemes that remain undetected do not appear in the dataset. The authors therefore describe an unseen “dark figure” of corruption that is never formally documented and stress that the available cases are likely to underestimate the true scale of the problem.

The study also found that subsidiaries were involved in twelve of the investigated cases. Senior managers were found to have authorized inflated payments or disguised expenses, while internal warnings and compliance reviews sometimes identified obvious problems but failed to stop them. This raises an obvious question: how many other similar schemes have existed but never been discovered?

What Does This Tell Us About the Pharma Industry?

The significance of the study goes far beyond the individual companies and cases it identifies, as bribery can distort the healthcare system even when a drug itself is deemed to meet official quality standards. If a doctor prescribes a particular medicine because of financial inducements rather than because it is supposedly a suitable choice for the patient, the patient can still lose. If a government procurement decision is influenced by kickbacks, taxpayers can end up paying more for drugs that are not necessarily appropriate. And if regulatory decisions are compromised, the consequences can be considerably more serious.

Significantly, therefore, the researchers conclude that the problem is systemic rather than confined to a particular country or region. The cases they cite involved bribery in 30 countries, spanning Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. This is particularly important because the pharmaceutical industry has spent decades attempting to cultivate an image of itself as a highly regulated, science-driven sector whose primary objective is the development of medicines to improve human health. Yet the evidence documented in this study shows how financial incentives can penetrate multiple levels of the system – from the doctor writing the prescription to the official approving the medicine and the government deciding which drugs to purchase.

Why Have We Heard So Little About This Study?

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this research is not simply what it found, but how little attention it appears to have received. The paper was published online on February 10, 2026, is openly accessible, and was published by Cambridge University Press in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Its findings concern some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies and document bribery involving doctors, government officials, regulators, and public procurement systems. Yet far from dominating the headlines, the story essentially appears to have been ignored.

There may be many explanations for this. Pharmaceutical corruption is complicated and often involves events that occurred years ago. The companies involved may have already paid financial penalties, allowing the cases to be presented as closed matters. And mainstream news organizations can be guaranteed to simultaneously have numerous other stories competing for attention.

But there is also another question that deserves to be asked. Pharmaceutical companies are among the world’s most powerful corporate advertisers, and many mainstream/legacy media organizations depend heavily on commercial advertising.

But does this financial relationship affect which aspects of the pharmaceutical industry receive sustained scrutiny?

The study itself does not investigate this question, so it cannot establish whether pharmaceutical advertising is responsible for the lack of media attention. But the disparity between the importance of the findings and the apparent lack of public discussion is certainly worthy of examination.

After all, if evidence of bribery involving some of the world’s biggest drug companies does not generate significant public debate, what does that tell us about the information reaching the public about the pharmaceutical industry?

The Public Deserves to Know

The authors of the study call for greater transparency, stronger oversight, improved monitoring of pharmaceutical payments to healthcare professionals, and greater protection for whistleblowers. They also argue for reforms that could reduce opportunities for corrupt payments, including more independent funding of clinical research and reduced dependence of regulators on industry financing. These are all sensible proposals. But there is a larger issue at stake here.

For years, members of the public have been encouraged to view the pharmaceutical industry primarily through the lens of scientific progress and medical innovation. Far less attention is devoted to its enormous financial incentives and to the conflicts of interest that can arise when commercial objectives intersect with medical decision-making.

The study does not prove that the entire pharmaceutical industry is corrupt, nor does it suggest that every doctor, regulator, or pharmaceutical employee is acting improperly. What it does provide is something much more difficult to dismiss: a systematic examination of officially documented cases showing that bribery has occurred repeatedly across different countries, companies, and levels of the pharmaceutical system.

The authors warn that the cases they identified almost certainly represent only the visible portion of the problem. This should concern anyone who believes that healthcare decisions should be based on one consideration above all others: what is best for the patient.

If the public is to have confidence in modern medicine, it deserves to know not only what pharmaceutical companies say about themselves, but also what their documented history of corporate conduct tells us. It is time for patients to be told the truth.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on Dr. Rath Health Foundation.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor

He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image source

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.