[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.

[D-fendr]

You’ve articulated a vague cloud.

What is with these one-month-old Freepers?