[Mase]

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.

If you had any evidence of a legitimate conflict of interest you'd be able to articulate it here rather than referring us to some article that offers no such evidence. You know there isn't any evidence in the article so you are left trying to change the subject. The only reason you believe that this conflict exists is because you have no clue as to how research is conducted or who is involved.

He has an existing and presumably ongoing business relationship with Merck; his is not an independent opinion.

So what? Find me one major research hospital that doesn't have deep ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The reason this country discovers 90% of all the new drugs brought to market is because our universities, hospitals and drug companies collaborate to make it happen.

While all of this is happening without your knowledge, you sit at your keyboard damning the very process that has made it possible to live a longer and healthier life than at any other time in our history. Luddites are a trip.

The rest of your post is garbage.

[icanhasbailout]

The conflict is obvious, I've articulated it clearly several times now, and you simply refuse to accept that what would be a blatant conflict of interest in any other sphere of work is one here. If this is how research is conducted, then no wonder why it is outrageously expensive and produces less and less benefit the longer it goes on. No wonder we are broke!

Just like with the climate "scientists", we have not an angelic force that wishes only good for the world, but many self-interested parties who will perfectly naturally collaborate with each other against the interest of the patients. Recommending that a drug not be given is simply bad business, just like the absence of impending climate doom in one's climate publications is bad for grant acquisition.