Beta Testers Sought for HandHold Adaptive's Autism Track
NY Legislature Passes Separate & Unequal Autism Insurance Bill Championed by Autism Speaks

David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You

Gorski Beer By Jake Crosby
 His motto is “A statement of fact cannot be insolent,” yet the title of his blog reads “Respectful Insolence.” In other words, even he admits there are no facts on his blog.

He has become the online spokesperson for the vaccine industry, a member of the highly trafficked, drug-industry-sponsored “Science”Blogs where he heavily promotes the tobacco science obscuring causes of autism. Posting under the science fiction name “Orac,” David Gorski has become the most outspoken, self-styled “skeptic” in defense of mercury that exceeds EPA limits in vaccines. Another example of a cause of autism he vehemently denies is the MMR - the triple, combined live-virus vaccine implicated in measles virus infection in the ileum, peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and cerebrospinal fluid of children who have autistic enterocolitis. 

 In case anybody’s wondering what David Gorski’s connection is to the autism debate, he has undisclosed financial ties to the vaccine industry. He has made no mention of these connections, despite stating in one of his many defenses of millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit, “A general principle is that undisclosed potential conflicts of interest (COIs) are of far more concern and potentially far more damaging to the scientific process than disclosed COIs.” However, Gorski has steadfastly denied possessing any conflicts, having once told me online without my even accusing him, “You are wrong. I receive no money from pharmaceutical companies and haven’t for 14 years.”


Well, it so happens Sanofi-Aventis – the world’s largest vaccine maker - is involved in several partnerships under which the company may be required to pay a total of €31 million ($39 million USD) from 2008 to 2013. Gorski’s employer, Wayne State University, is one of the partners, and he is conducting a clinical trial of one of the company’s drugs. Therefore, like Offit (who concealed the millions he received in Merck royalty payments because Merck paid the royalties to a third party, not Offit directly) Gorski has a reasonable expectation to receive money from a vaccine maker, even if it is through a third party. A look at the summary description of the Gorski Lab reveals that his research focus is drug discovery and development. However, he is not developing a new drug, but rather, developing new uses for an existing one. Such a process is far more profitable to the drug manufacturer as it eliminates the costs of developing a new substance from scratch, thereby maximizing profits for the company.

The potentially profitable drug Gorski is in the process of conducting a clinical trial for is the ALS drug Riluzole, made by Sanofi-Aventis and marketed as Rilutek. Amplifying the conflict further is that the same drug is also being studied for the treatment of autism. At Autism One, the National Institute of Mental Health was handing out recruitment pamphlets for children ages 7-17 to take part as subjects in a clinical trial of Riluzole for its effectiveness in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders, and repetitive and stereotypical behaviors in particular. Apparently, David Gorski has had his eye on that drug for a long time, but as a possible treatment for breast cancer. As suggested by a 2008-2009 webpage of a breast cancer website:

“Three years ago in another cancer (melanoma), Dr. Gorski's collaborators found that glutamate might have a role in promoting the transformation of the pigmented cells in the skin (melanocytes) into the deadly skin cancer melanoma. More importantly for therapy, it was found that this protein can be blocked with drugs, and, specifically, in melanoma cell lines and tumor models of melanoma using a drug originally designed to treat ALS and already FDA-approved for that indication (Riluzole) can inhibit the growth of melanoma.” HERE

Subtract three years from 2008-2009 and you get 2005-2006 – when David Gorski started blogging heavily about vaccines. Currently, the Barbara Anne Karmanos Cancer Institute of Wayne State University is sponsoring the trial for Riluzole, and Wayne State is the only university listed in the Yahoo! Finance stock summary of Sanofi-Aventis as being in a financial partnership with the company. Sanofi-Aventis owns Sanofi-Pasteur, the second largest manufacturer of vaccines in the world, including both thimerosal-preserved vaccines, and MMR vaccines. (Its first MMR vaccine, Immravax, was banned for causing viral meningitis in children.) David Gorski, while up front about the direct funding he received from drug companies 14 years ago for a patent as well as the funding he has received from the various institutions with which he has been affiliated, has not been up front about funding from drug companies received through his institution. According to the drug company’s website in 2008, “Sanofi-Aventis has entered into various other collaboration agreements with partners including Immunogen, Coley, Wayne State University, Innogenetics and Inserm, under which Sanofi-Aventis may be required to make total contingent payments of approximately €31 million over the next five years.” This is the same year it was announced that David Gorski would carry out a series of clinical trials for the company and its drug, Riluzole. HERE

 In fact, one of the two primary interests of the Gorski lab is this Sanofi-Aventis drug. In the Wayne state description, the lab’s two interests are described, “First, we are interested in the transcriptional regulation of vascular endothelial cell phenotype.” Worth noting is that a patent relating to this was issued listing David Gorski as an inventor. In his blog bio, Gorski admits receiving money for the patent in 1994 from a drug company, but that was only during the provisional filing before the patent was issued. Whatever the compensation was, its timing does not suggest any licensing of the intellectual property rights.

Also, according to the Gorski lab, “Our second area of interest is the role of metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) in breast cancer,” which relates directly to the therapy linking the use of Riluzole to breast cancer treatment. However, the description concludes, “In addition, we have noted that mGluR1 is expressed on vascular endothelial cells and have preliminary evidence that its inhibition is also antiangiogenic, thus linking our laboratory’s two interests and suggesting a broader application for metabotropic glutamate receptor targeting in cancer therapy.” In other words, David Gorski’s entire research focus, including a patent still listed in his name for which he admits receiving drug company money, ties into finding new uses for a drug made by Sanofi-Aventis, while the university housing his lab is in partnership with the company. HERE

In spite of this easily-accessible information about his drug industry ties, Gorski’s denial of being in the pocket of the drug industry stretches so far beyond what he is even regularly accused of, that he will from time to time actually post a handful of links to the few token, laughably transparent posts out of the thousands he’s written which are at all critical of the drug industry. None concerned ongoing, unresolved controversies such as those surrounding autism, and none are critical of Sanofi. To David Gorski, Sanofi-Aventis is apparently untouchable. When a fellow blogger wrote a post entitled “Placing a vaccine order with crooks and liars” - questioning the government’s reliance on Sanofi-Aventis developing a swine flu vaccine just after the company was forced to pay nearly $100 million in compensation for cheating Medicaid, David Gorski was not amused. “Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick. The antivaccine nuts will have a field day with this,” he yelped.

The blogger responded, “orac: Meaning we shouldn't call them on it?” David Gorski chastised even his fellow blogger: “I would have hoped that you would realize that that's not what I meant at all to the point where you wouldn't have even asked a question like that, but apparently I was wrong. I didn't realize your opinion of me was so low.” Apparently, the public image of Sanofi-Aventis is more important to Gorski than the fact that disabled people, including those with autism, were cheated out of millions of dollars.

His actual profession may have nothing to do with the disorder, but Sanofi-Aventis certainly plays a major role in the autism epidemic. So blogging like the kind Gorski has been engaged in would undoubtedly win him some major brownie points with the pharmaceutical company. This could be very beneficial to a researcher like him, given that he is conducting a clinical trial of Sanofi-Aventis’ drug while his employer is in a Sanofi-Aventis partnership that could be worth millions. Meanwhile, he is trashing alternative therapies for autism when the drug he is conducting a clinical trial on may become a treatment for autism. How none of this could be considered undisclosed COIs to David Gorski--while Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s connection to lawyers in relation to the retracted case report from the Lancet is a “fatal” COI--is absolutely bizarre. Gorski makes no mention of his current connections to the drug industry on his blog, including the possible application the drug he is focused on may have to autism. 

Yet a number of years back, David Gorski wrote on his blog as “Orac,” “Yes, in the case of a true ‘shill’ who does not reveal that he works for a pharmaceutical company and pretends to be ‘objective,’ it is quite appropriate to ‘out’ that person.” From reading this, one would think David Gorski would be happy to know that his undisclosed connections to Sanofi-Aventis – one of the largest vaccine makers in the world - have just been outed.

So I e-mailed him:

Dr. Gorski,

This is Jake Crosby. I am doing a piece about your acknowledgment that disclosure of conflicts of interest is important, yet your lab at Wayne State University stands to benefit from Sanofi Aventis money for the breast cancer research you are conducting on a drug the company manufactures and markets, Riluzole, which is also being studied for the treatment of autism. Why isn't any of this disclosed on your blogs? I await your reply.


Jake Crosby
Age of Autism
Contributing Editor with Autism

Dr. Gorski Responds

David Gorski, a.k.a. “Orac,” of “Science”Blogs/-BasedMedicine replied the next morning with a short, excuse-filled response:

“A more comprehensive answer will be forthcoming when I have more time, probably by tomorrow. (I have to go to work now, and because we have house guests, I will be busy when I get back.) In the meantime, suffice it to say that I receive no money from Sanofi-Aventis, nor am I likely to. 


He did not address my question at all; perhaps he was too busy cooking breakfast for his house guests. I never said he received any money from Sanofi-Aventis, only that his lab stood to benefit from such money since the company is in a partnership with his lab’s university, Wayne State, which is sponsoring Gorski’s clinical trial of Riluzole.

Two days later came his “more comprehensive answer.” If Dr. Jekyll wrote his previous email, Mr. Hyde wrote:

“My answer is here:

Since you were obviously preparing to do to me what you've done in the past with, for example, Adam Bly, Gardiner Harris, and Chris Mooney, I decided that the best defense is a good offense and that a public preemptive response was demanded.

When you write your piece, link to it if you dare. If there's one thing about AoA that I find despicable and cowardly, it's that they refuse to link to me when they slime me. J.B. is particularly guilty of this. I link to AoA because I'm not afraid of my readers going to the primary source. Are you?


I’ll let the editors at Age of Autism decide whether they want to include the link or not. Age of Autism is comprised of original material that Gorski is heavily dependent on for his fits; he’s a scavenger. Plus, all our readers are perfectly capable of accessing his tantrums anyway.

Moving on to his post, it is essentially a huge rant divided up into five sections, the first of which can be summed up by this sentence: “It’s far easier for [quacks and pseudoscientists] just to put their fingers in their ears and scream ‘Conflict of interest! Conflict of interest!’ and then use that to dismiss completely their opponent’s argument.”

In fact, that’s basically the whole point of the first three sections. I have never advocated this in any of my articles, and I invite him to point out a specific example of where I have either in his case or in another example of my posts. He even lied that I accused Seed Media founder Adam Bly of being influenced by Sanofi-Aventis while he was studying at the Canadian National Research Council – I never alleged any such thing.

I do agree with him, however, that this is the proper way to take into account conflicts of interest: “…if a study is funded by big pharma, he decreases the strength of the evidence in his mind by a set amount.” That said, I do believe that conflicts of interest whenever present should be brought up, like that of Gardiner Harris, who violated the ethical guidelines of The New York Times by failing to disclose that his brother sells lab equipment to pharmaceutical companies. David Gorski does not seem to think so, despite agreeing with me that pharmaceutical funding does decrease the strength of evidence. My question for him: Which is it?

In the fourth section, Gorski congratulates himself for the research that is related to his Sanofi-Aventis connections. He brags, “If it passes clinical trials, it may well be a very useful drug for potentiating the effects of other cancer therapies, such as chemotherapy and radiation.” Beyond Gorski’s blogging about autism and his undisclosed COI, as J.B. Handley put it, “I could care less about Mr. Gorski or his career.” 

 Moving on to the final section, he sums up his basis for denying he has a conflict of interest:
“First, I would have to be receiving money from Sanofi-Aventis. I am not.”

I never said he was, only that Sanofi-Aventis is in a partnership with his university, which in turn is sponsoring his clinical trial of Sanofi’s drug, Riluzole.

“Second, I would have to have the reasonable expectation to receive money from Sanofi-Aventis. I do not.”

Though he may not expect to receive money from Sanofi-Aventis directly, he can expect to receive money that Sanofi has paid to his employer, Wayne State.

 “I’m not even angling for money from Sanofi-Aventis to run my lab.”

He doesn’t have to; his university does the angling for him.

“Third, I would have to know that Riluzole is being tested as a treatment for autistic children.”

It does not matter if he did not know Riluzole was being studied to treat autism, he would still have a COI.

“In any case, even if I had known [of Riluzole as a possible treatment for ASD], it still wouldn’t have been a COI. I’m not a neurologist, and I don’t treat ASD or OCD. I’m never going to be doing research with Riluzole in children with ASD, OCD, or both.” Even though he does not treat autism, and even though he is not a neurologist, he still has a conflict of interest because of his Sanofi ties and the fact that he blogs about autism causes and treatments all the time.

What ultimately matters is that David Gorski is conducting a clinical trial of a Sanofi-Aventis drug (undisclosed to his readers), sponsored by his Sanofi-Aventis-partnered university (also undisclosed to his readers), and he constantly writes blog posts that are favorable to Sanofi-Aventis. To show just how important Sanofi is to Gorski, he even said in the comments section that if the drug fails his clinical trial for breast cancer, it would be a “major setback” for his research. Yet, instead of conceding that he is conflicted in this way, he attempts to talk his way out of the points I raised in the 84-word e-mail I sent to him with a 4,562-word smokescreen, followed by another 20,915 words from his loyal commenters.

Jake Crosby is a college student at Brandeis University who is double majoring in History and Health: Science, Society and Policy, and is a contributing editor to Age of Autism. 



@Adraina: I've wondered the same about Gorski's hidden talents. Because they're so well hidden.
I would speculate that he fries small furry mammals with γ-rays.

John Stone


Exactly so - it is hate rhetoric and nothing else. Absolutely intended to obliterate tolerant scientific discourse.

Ahmed Fouad

I had a conflict with this Gorski before on one of his articles on his blog (Science based medicine). The article was about antiperspirants and breast cancer. Through the entire article he insulted many researchers who contributed in studies which showed whether there is any evidence of a probable link between antiperspirants and breast cancer.

His method is : Debunk a myth by trying to minimize any efforts have suggested it to be possibly true.

What really bothered me is his way of criticizing. This is not ethical at all. Any one with an average knowledge about scientific research will understand what i mean. Some studies are not well established (may contain bias or confounding factors) and need further investigations and sequels. Instead of correctly interpreting clinical studies and showing motive opinions to do more work on these studies, he intends to minimize these efforts in his writings in a disgusting way. This is exactly like saying "He intend to block the way off any further research studying the relation between Antiperspirants and breast cancer". Who wants to do a research that may be insulted and underrated by a well-known, media-empowered researcher.

What also bothered me are his followers on social media and blogs. They are physicians and students who agree with whatever he says. This really made me to believe for the 1st time that there's priesthood in medicine.

Medical field had witnessed many controversies, but hadn't witnessed a corruption like we have these days.

Ahmed Fouad,
Community pharmacist,
Cairo, Egypt

Victim of Dave

He cuts breasts of for a living of women with breast cancer.
Why would he EVER want to find a cure? LOL
He also trolls health pages on Facebook and is on the Anti Vax Wall of Shame and a known troll



i think i'd trust this site a lot more if the comments section wasn't obviously moderated to exclude other voices.

i look for what i can believe - but if those to try and tell me stuff don't allow me to judge then what's the point?


Patricia P tursi

Thanks to Crosby who revealed the economic reasons for David Gorski's (aka Orach) financial ties to pharma. If people do not post under their own names, they should not be taken seriously. Saying he does not take money is lying. It is simply indirect, rather than direct. I was searching for his financial connection when I found this site. Thank you.


This is what other professionals say about Dr??? Gorski:

Please look at his own web page where he disclosed his contracts (for speaking) and please find out where the 30,000 Euro came from.Paid by pharma,works for pHarma;simple is that.
He needs to be fired from his job.


Best not to waste our precious enegy on this shark.It is clear that dr.Dorski does not understand the vaccine issues
and parental concerns.He can not imagine that a parent may
self-educate and becomes more knowledge-able than a doctor.
Let us focus on our children and find the answers.He is a pharma sponsored big pharma shark who may come up with his own dorski vaccine one day.We need to keep an eye on him. One shoe does not fit all,dr(!?!#)Dorski,voo.

Mark Landes

I read the post from the mom whose child was given 11 vaccines in one visit.

In the journal "Pediatrics" Jan 2002 p 124 --the writer states not to worry about getting too many vaccines - it's OK because they've just found out that an infant can safely withstand 10,000 vacines. Just by chance the article was written by a member of the CDC Advisory Board, Paul 'for profit' Offit.


Not saying anything bad about a specific drug company because they are funding your research and could pull it = you should not have a blog where you discuss medical advice for anyone considering there is one source you are not at liberty to critically analyze in addition to the others.

Am I missing anything?

Pro Truth

This is not abut David Gorski but it IS about another pharma company using children as guinea pigs in impoverished countries.

Anger over secret drug trials on Indian children

Brutalities fined a minimal sum
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:15 by Makomborero Midzi


After having been in email contact with Gorski over his attacks on Joe Mercola and others, I am confident that this piece accurately represents the man. He seems bent on attacking anyone who offers real cures with his half truths, broken facts, and misleading energy and wit.

Jake Crosby

Gorski accuses me of spreading a lie from this article - I have yet to hear him point out what this imaginary lie is and where it is written anywhere in this post.

Jake Crosby

And one more thing:

David Gorski censored the link to this article when I tried to post it in a comment on his blog.

Jake Crosby

You're right, John. Good point.

John Stone


"It is possible that the research contract he has with the drug company prevents him from stating publicly that the study is being funded by the company. This appears to be common practice in the industry."

He also shouldn't sign such a contract. We are supposed to believe in transparency these days.

Jake Crosby

Then he shouldn't be blogging about an issue for which his opinion would be highly conflicted.


"David Gorski, while up front about the direct funding he received from drug companies 14 years ago ... has not been up front about funding from drug companies received through his institution."

It is possible that the research contract he has with the drug company prevents him from stating publicly that the study is being funded by the company. This appears to be common practice in the industry.


MONEY!!!plain and simple ...directly or indirectly its there..otherwise altruism!!!!

Jake Crosby

"It comes back in the form of good publicity - ranging from word of mouth, thanks you in a newsletter or in the case of GSK good name recognition."

Adding further support to the phrase, "money talks."

John Stone

Mary P

Even you agree that it is at best a form a form of advertising for GSK, and therefore not something for nothing - and it is patently a disclosable competing interest. The worst think is that sins become invisible to the participants. I don't doubt that Gorski was outraged with me, because it's the culture, but he descended at the same time into semi-articulacy because there is no answer.

I have quoted the ICMJE rules. There is no point in pretending I am being naieve (unless they are).

Mary P

@John Stone
"I think it would be very surprising if GSK were just giving away its shareholders' money."

This suggests you have never been involved in the management of a business. Most businesses give away money - the amount varies by the size of the business. It comes back in the form of good publicity - ranging from word of mouth, thanks you in a newsletter or in the case of GSK good name recognition.

John Stone

Hi Jake,

"Burning stupid". In Gorski's hands even adjectives become nouns - the language of someone totally enraged and without perspective. For the these people the problem is that their own status is so bound up in a system of patronage that when they have it pointed out they feel challenged to their very core. Gorski took the Scherer article as the deepest personal affront, and instead of offering a reasoned response (since there isn't one) he emotes in picturesque fashion.

I think it would be very surprising if GSK were just giving away its shareholders' money. There was also a famous incident involving Scherer's university (Toronto)when psychiatrist David Healy's professorship there was cancelled after he criticised Prozac (the department was funded by Eli Lilly). Any prospective aponsor might well have been encouraged by that incident that they had come to the right place!

Anyhow, you can read an account of the Healy affair by Guardian journalist Sarah Boseley who also wrote the original news report of the Pinto study for the newspaper.

Somehow, all this put me in mind of Beaumarchais and Mozart: our institutions as rotten as France before the revolution.


Jake Crosby

John, Gorski's tirade about you was paper-thin, even for a typical Gorski rant.

First he claims you don't know what an endowed chair is because you cite it as a COI, which as he states:

"a company or wealthy donor gives a university a lot of money, and the university sets up the endowed chair using that money."

And that money talks.

Then he claims you don't know what a corresponding author is simply because you say Scherer is both the senior author and corresponding author, and that SUPPOSEDLY you should have automatically assumed they were one in the same.

Then he attempts to play down the role in the study:

"namely the author in whose laboratory and using whose funding the research described in the paper was performed."

Right, the senior author does not have much to do with the study...he only runs the lab where the research was conducted and controlled the purse straps for the money that goes into that research. And yet, according to him, such a coauthor would not have a relevant COI to report.

All I have to say about Dr. Gorski - giving him a taste of his own medicine - is that:

"...he's just completely humiliated himself by laying down a swath of burning stupid that has consumed everything in its path."

John Stone

The ICMJE rules seem to have been updated in the past weeks but they cover Gorski's situation in detail: also it demonstrates how palpably erroneous Gorski's attack on me was regarding the AGPC study in Nature where 176 authors produced only these declarations of competing interest:

“Competing Financial Interests: L.J. Bierut and J.P. Rice are inventors on the patent “Markers for Addiction” (US 20070258898) covering the use of certain SNPs in determining the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of addiction. L.J. Bierut served as a consultant for Pfizer Inc. in 2008.”

This surely would not have been possible in an ICMJE journal, whatever their deficiencies.

It is precisely also because people do operate under the illusion that they are without bias that it is necessary to have disclosure. In the case of the AGPC/Nature study there is every reason to believe that it is a vain pursuit and a waste of space, and it assuredly uses public money as well.

They should be called to account, and so should Gorski.


There are some really smart people whose children have become sick after a vaccine. They want to just know why, so maybe they can fix it. They are smart enough like John Stone or Jake Crosby to wonder - and even figure out why someone would be up in their face, passionate about the issue that did not affect them personally except maybe linked to their pocket book.

John Stone

These are relevant extracts from the current
ICMJE Conflict of Interest Form:

'The requested information is about
resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party -- that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a
government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". The complete the appropriate
boxes to indicate the type of support and whether the payment went to you, or to your institution, or both.

'Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work.

'This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to
influence,or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should
disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is
about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with
entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer.
Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36
months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work,
not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work's sponsor
that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a
relationship than not to do so.
For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that
could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by
entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome.

'Other relationships.

'Use this section to report other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work.

Jake Crosby

"It only become a COI if a individual who has meade public pronoucements on a topic...benefit in some financial way from the source as a result of their activities."

As in conducting a clinical trial for a drug made by that source which, if successful, may potentiate the effectiveness of chemo or radiation - and if not - will be a "major setback" to the individual's research.


This does not pass the definition of COI. Just because the institution he works with receives funding he himself does not. Research institutions and Universities receive funding from many different sources. I challenge you to find a successful research institue of universtity that doesn't have some sort of funding link to a pharmaceutical company.

It only become a COI if a individual who has meade public pronoucements on a topic gets direct funding from such a source OR they benefit in some financial way from the source as a result of their activities. You have failed to provide any evidence that this is the case in this instance.

Jake Crosby


If you read my article, which you apparently did not, you would not be confused. That's the whole point, he is NOT receiving direct funding from Sanofi, but the company is in partnership with his university which is sponsoring his trial of Sanofi's drug. As a result, he has misleadingly claimed that therefore he has not received any funding from a pharmaceutical company since the 1990s, while not disclosing his current COI.

So what if this time the money is being funneled to him through a third party, and so what if he may not receive a direct financial kickback if the trial is successful. Gorski's stating the drug's failure would be a "major setback" to his research is enough evidence for his having a huge stake in the outcome of his own trial.

And no, patented drugs are not equivalent to water and electricity. Your attempted analogies are ridiculous.


I'm still a little confused here.

You have no evidence that Dr Gorski is receiving any direct funding from the pharmaceutical company only that he is using a product of one in his studies.

He has stated quite categorically that he didn't even get this drug from the pharmaceutical company directly and bought it.

Finally there doesn't seem to be any evidence that if the trials that he is carrying are successful he will receive a monetary benefit from the pharmaceutical company making the drug.

So where is this supposed conflict of interest again? Is it because he uses a drug in his scientific investigation? Does this mean if he uses water or electricity he has a conflict of interest with the Water and Electric companies?


Thank You Thereas O for your view on the greater good. It was a good view and I will remember it.

Sorry about your father. No, he did not deserve it, and there should have been some thinking before they released the vaccine. If I remember correctly - there were a lot of problems with the polio vaccine including a bad batch that actually gave kids polio. Bad batches happen, and if the light is shone on them and it is corrected with all the honesty, intriguity, honor that can be administered - I can accept that - probably better than the kids who lived in California that go ahold of a bad batch of live polio vaccine.

How would you feel if the vaccine that actually gave kids the polio was hidden and they told everyone it was some thing else that caused it?
When you are lied to, denied assess to certain facts, can not obtain justice - no explanation of how this happened, it is a whole different ball game.


Polio can not be compared to whooping cough because for one thing there are antibiotics for it.

Yes, I know it is most dangerous for newborns. Although most newborns are suppose to have the immunity from their mothers but there are some that do not.

Like I said in an earlier post, there was such a new born that went to our church. Our church ended up with three brain damaged children instead of the one - thanks to the DPT vaccine.


My post got truncated because of angle brackets - looked OK in preview. sorry

My post was in answer to why antibiotics were administered when the kids had already been vaccinated - because some strains have evolved resistance to the acellular vaccine.

As to your 'greater good' argument, my sympathies are with you but...

My father caught polio when I was a child - very likely as a result of the vaccine my sister and I were given a week prior. As a result of that vaccination program Polio has gone from being an endemic killer with thousands of cases every year (58,000 in 1952) to being virtually eliminated. Yeah it sucked, but vaccinations saved hundreds of thousands from crippling disease and death.

Did my father deserve polio, no - no-one deserves to get a disease - whether from a vaccine or from another infected person.

Should we stop vaccinating? Only if you want preventable diseases to once again become rampant and hundreds of thousands of children to become sick and die.

Theresa O

Benedetta, my husband and I were talking just the other night about what a misnomer "the greater good" is. What it really is, is that it's very hard to choose between two crappy things, and so a lot of people call their choice (harming some children in exchange for--theoretically, anyway--ridding the world of a bad disease) "the greater good." Calling it that doesn't make it true, any more than it was true for (for example) putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps during WWII or torturing prisoners of war.

I am so, so sorry about how your children were harmed by vaccines. Even if vaccines totally eliminated pertussis, and even if no other virus sprang up to take its place, I would still not consider your children's suffering to be "for the greater good." It's the flip side of a choice, and it's about time society was informed as to everything that's involved in making that choice.


What this link is saying is that the acellular pertussis vaccine is not working as good as the whole cell.
Not only that but there is a couple of new strains of pertusis that the newer DTaP vaccine does not prepare the immune system for.

The old whole cell pertussis really did a number on both of my children. There is no doubt about it since both of my childern were "rechallenged" several times over.

The new DTaP is also causing a lot of heart ache too. I just meet a young mother graduating for nursing school a couple of years back with an autistic child because he reacted to the newer DTaP.

I know the whole debate is how to protect the population,it is for the greater good.
"The greater good", is perhaps the most selfish, evil concept the human mind has reasoned out.

Don't my children and the other children harmed by the vaccine count for anything?

Are not their lives also just as important as other children's.

Are not their brains, who they were born as, who they were really meant to be - and not what the environment"all because of the greater good" made them --are not they worth at least some study and all of society facing the truth?


>>Here is another example.
My best friend now a grandmother - her grandson entered kindergarden last year. One child came down with whooping cough even though it was vaccinated.
So they required the whole kindergarden class to take two weeks worth of antibiotics.

My best friend is a nurse and beleives in vaccinating. She was stumped why they had to have antibiotics if they were vaccinated.<<

Some strains of the pertussis bacterium have become resistant to the acellular version of the vaccine. The acellular vaccine provides fewer antigens than the whole cell vaccines that were used in the past.

Jake Crosby


Gorski's university isn't just in partnership with Sanofi, he's also doing a clinical trial of a Sanofi drug sponsored by his university while the institution is in partnership with the company. It does not take a genius to put two and two together, especially when Gorski himself brags that if Sanofi's drug is successful in his clinical trial, it may potentiate the therapeutic benefits of chemo and radiation - and if it is not - it will be a major setback to his research. His words, not mine.

It also speaks volumes that he will defend the company in situations where it already conceded fault - like when the pharmaceutical giant was forced to pay back nearly $100 million in compensation after it was shown to have cheated Medicaid.


Here is a very good analysis of why sciencebasedmedicine isn't helpful on the topic of autism.


So your whole argument is that David Gorski’s opinions might be influenced by the fact that the organisation that he works for receives funding from a Pharmaceutical company, even though he himself receives no direct benefit from such an association? That is an incredibly long bow to draw.

You might as well try and claim that as he lives in a country where there are many Pharmaceutical companies present and who contribute a large amount of funding through taxation to the government he needs to reveal that particular conflict of interest as well.

If you have no evidence of a direct link to David Gorski and the pharmaceutical company then you have no conflict of interest. Trying to argue that you do because of such tenuous linkages as detailed in your article smacks of a major kind of desperation.

Jake Crosby

Kerry, I totally agree with you - pseudoscience does harm the innocent. That's why I don't get my information off the "Science"-BasedMedicine Blog, which still hasn't addressed my point.


Benedetta said, "I made a list on the way to the emergency room last night after my daughter had a seizure ( long history of vaccine reactions by all three of my family members) the list was of people I have met over the years that I wished killed. Trouble is to get the real deep satisfaction from it- I would have to bring them back to life to kill 'em again. "

We should compare notes sometime!

Kerry H

Science based medicine is the only way to move forward in this world.Research and testable claims.Pseudoscience harms the innocent.

Jake Crosby

How Big Pharma responds to every exposure of its impropriety: "It's a CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!"


I've been wait'in Kerry for 29 years, for not only real science but for scientific curiosity. It is not any where to be found.
I almost reached my limit last night.
I made a list on the way to the emergency room last night after my daughter had a seizure ( long history of vaccine reactions by all three of my family members) the list was of people I have met over the years that I wished killed. Trouble is to get the real deep satisfication from it- I would have to bring them back to life to kill 'em again.
Yes, I am a deeply paranoid person, boooooo! I think the medical establishment could care less about my family or the mess they have caused.


Don't you love how the Science Club trolls bumrush the back end of a post once everyone else moves on to new things?

Kerry H

Wow! The people who write for this website want to"tell parents the truth" but then fill their entries with bull honkey! You are really grasping as some pretty feeble straws to try and "make a point". Get over yourselves! Or better yet...put on your tinfoil hat and hide in a room because you think everything is big this and big that. What a depraved life it must be feeling that everything is a conspiracy...and oh how smart you are to see through it. Of course YOU don't require ANY support from any BIG paymaster do you. That whole notion of big pharma and shills is such an old piece of rhetoric garbage...come up with something new or get off the pot! Wait...just get off and let the real science do the job...


Um... with all due respect, when you know anything about research funding structures, your conclusion seems really far-fetched.

However, I find the photo of Dr. Gorski surprisingly adorable. Is that what he looks like? Is he available?

michael framson

Well Done Jake, It's becoming a full time job to investigate and inform readers of the real and potential conflicts of interest of those who write and say the worst things.

Most of what pharma touches becomes rotten.

Jenny Allan

Barney - the sodium is even worse!!


ZOMG, table salt is half CHLORINE, a deadly poison! WE MUST BAN IT NOW!