This "conflict of interest" issue has been covered ad nauseum in past posts. I am at scientific meetings regularly and have produced and reviewed studies for poster and podium presentation. The fact is that any professional organization accounts for consultants of a company presenting research by a disclosure of that relationship. It does not change the science, only how we evaluate the results and use that to guide treatment that is recommended to patients.
Part of the scientific method in fact, is the listing of study parameters and "materials and methods" so any other researcher could reproduce and attempt to verify or disprove a study result. Checking the results is certainly acceptable and encouraged in the scientific community and has often resulted in spirited discussions of the issues and sometimes harsh disagreements of the issues. That exchange fosters good science.
As a knowledgeable person in the field I have no interest in anything other than good science from an ethical perspective, but even not assuming that common ground, bad science is just not smart. It will eventually come to light what is true anyway. Sadly, some come to an issue with a preconceived idea and concoct faulty arguments and data to support that notion, rather than using scientific method to test a hypothesis and evaluate it based on where the data takes them.
A classic example is global warming where data is fudged to support a preconceived notion of real events. Legitimate disagreement is then put down by threatening to defund research projects or deny academic appointments to those who express dissent. That bullying stifles legitimate study, discussion, and disagreement. Unfortunately it is readily accepted as the believers think that they are saving the world and whatever they have to say or do is justified to promote the preconceived notion.
To apply things to Sucanon, I would simply encourage any to study the science of the studies and do your DD. Instead of the preconceived notions, I would encourage all to evaluate results and arguments based on cold hard science and logic. To that end any comments or criticisms are certainly welcome. That's why we are here.
