It appears you have no idea what constitutes a conflict of interest. That doesn't surprise me given the content of your post.
Your sarcasm marks you as uneducated, proud of your ignorance.
I see you're a comedian as well.
In this day and age, and this climate, putting a researcher who has been funded by big pharma in charge of the largest research hospital in the world is more than a conflict, it’s putting the foxes in charge of the hen house.
What a cock. Yeah, if I wanted to cure cancer the last thing I'd want to do is put one of the top oncologists in the country in charge of the best cancer research hospital in the country, and possibly the world. It would be better for all involved if they'd simply chosen someone with a background in English Literature or Anthropology. Talk about building credibility and being able to attract donations for research! Yeah, they obviously picked the wrong guy.
HINT: There has never been a pharma funded piece of research that didn’t come out the way they wanted it to come out.
I have no idea what that means except for the fact that you don't know the first thing about research. But here you are anyway.
Yes. That’s what I’m saying. Any research funded by pharma is trash. Keck.
No, what you're really saying here is that you don't have the foggiest notion of what you're talking about and that you insist on proving it.
You still haven’t said anything that supports your position in the least except to say MD Anderson good, therefore, Pinhole good. Bull. Nobody works on pharma grants unless they work for big pharma—immediate conflict of interest. The pharmaceutical companies are thoroughly discredited for numerous problems over the years from buying vacations for doctors to paying doctors to shill for their products at medical conferences. I’m not saying it’s altogether fair... but I am saying if Merck can’t underwrite a conference on psychopharmacology that doesn’t even include paid presenters, how in the hell can they get off buying the president of a research hospital?