UK’s chief scientific adviser has £600,000 of shares in vaccine maker contracted by UK govt

international | health / disability issues | news report Thursday September 24, 2020 18:41 by 1 of indy

It has been revealed that the UK's chief scientific advisor who also chairs the government’s expert advisory panel on vaccines has according to reports (in the Telegraph) has over 43,000 shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) – a multinational pharmaceutical company. The shares are estimated to be worth £600,000

This is the same person who is pushing for the vaccine and currently promoting fear around the current rise in "cases" trying to imply there is a second wave when these are just detections and not cases of where people previously had Covid and other related diseases

The question that remains is how many other leading proponents of lockdowns have similar vested interests both here and in the UK.

It was recently revealed that our own Prof Luke O’Neill’ who appears regularly on the billionaire owned NewsTalk has his own bio-tech company which received generous funding from vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline also.

This was mentioned in this article: Left in Lockdown: The Irish Left’s Problem with the Anti-Lockdown Movement https://medium.com/@scientism.and.the.left/left-in-lockdown-c984a3aa13da

And earlier in the summer Dr Malcolm Kendrick a GP in the National Health Service in England wrote this Op-ed on rt.com back in July.

His blog is at: https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/ and he runs the site:http://www.doctoringdata.co.uk/

In it here are some choice quotes he gives.

For example, here is Dr Marcia Angell, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for over 20 years, writing in 2009:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor.”

Have things got better? No, I believe they’ve got worse – if that were, indeed, possible. I was recently sent the following email about a closed-door, no-recording-allowed discussion, held in May of this year under no-disclosure Chatham House rules:

“A secretly recorded meeting between the editors-in-chief of The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine reveal both men bemoaning the ‘criminal’ influence big pharma has on scientific research. According to Philippe Douste-Blazy, France’s former health minister and 2017 candidate for WHO director, the leaked 2020 Chatham House closed-door discussion was between the [editor-in-chiefs], whose publications both retracted papers favorable to big pharma over fraudulent data.

The email continued with a quote from that recording: ‘Now we are not going to be able to … publish any more clinical research data because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude,’ said The Lancet’s editor-in-chief, Richard Horton.”