I've dismissed nothing except your accusation, without evidence, that there exists a conflict of interest. As a scientists myself, I am only interested in your evidence. Either put up or admit that you wrote a check you cannot cash.
I did just that in the very first post you started arguing with me on and even gave you a link so you could read the whole story. He has an existing and presumably ongoing business relationship with Merck; his is not an independent opinion.
And as for you, I would take some time to think about the approach you have laid out here and what conclusion one would come to by following it in another "soft" science - climatology. If I followed your mode of thinking that would compel me to believe in AGW, because the "experts" agree. Or heck, that would compel me to believe in tarot, fortune telling, or any other flavor of shamanism, because those who make it their living are the experts on the subject.
Medicine - and cancer medicine in particular - is no exact science that these kind of statements can be made with certainty, as if they were somehow mathematical laws, for the same reasons that the climate doomers couldn't make their claims with certainty. All the experts in any subject have a bias to make the subject appear more important than it is, because to them in particular, it is.
When it comes down to recommending a vaccine that only really matters if your kid is a slut, is it really the responsible thing to say take this vaccine, instead of teaching her not to be self-destructive? Seriously, this treats young women like herd animals - it is properly their choice to make, and mandating it from government is politicians practicing medicine. Coerced medicine is the practice of coercion, and not that of medicine.