Your fallacy is: tu quoque.

No, my claim is about the process in which memes succeed. As such it's not invalid ad hominem to analyse that process.

If you forbid all kinds of ad hominems than you basically say that it's in general a fallacy to call out someone who's suffering from bias. To stay in the overall argument, there no reason to blind yourself and ignore features of the process that produces memes.

You've made a claim and aren't supplying evidence for it, formal or even non-negligible Bayesian.

I haven't made a claim that includes the word "conspiracy". You used that word. There no reason for my to provide evidence for claims I haven't made. Given the kind of claims I'm arguing there no reason to attack straw mans.

If you want evidence for big pharma paying kickbacks to promote drugs : http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q22013/feds-sue-novartis-pharma-for-paying-kickbacks/

The database shows Pfizer has made at least $538,200,000 in side payments to doctors, while Eli Lily comes in a close second having paid out $490,600,000.

That are two companies paying together a billion in bribes and it only counts the bribes of doctors. Whether or not you want to call a billion in bribes a conspiracy is semantics which doesn't have much to do with Bayesian reasoning and I specifically didn't use the word 'conspiracy' because I don't think it's very helpful in this case.

Do you doubt that big pharma has a bunch of lobbyists that have a lot of influence on the medical system? Is that a claim for which you want proof?

Do you want me to search of the marketing budget of various big pharma companies and for the amount of money that the chiropractor associating can afford to spend on similar activities?