© Daniele Idini
When a researcher publishes a research paper he or she is obliged to state clearly any funding source. The reasons for this are entirely obvious. Most 'bad', 'faulty', or 'unreliable' research is tainted by the interests of those who have provided financial support.
There is nothing new in any of this, and scientific literature is replete with examples - from the use of Thalidimode for morning sickness to Andrew Wakefield linking the MMR vaccine to autism etc. - of bad or biased science. That is not to say necessarily that a scientist or expert offering scientific guidance has been influenced by the overt or covert desires of his sponsors; however, to preserve impartiality he must declare any sponsors before 'expert' or 'scientific' conclusions are tendered.
Unfortunately, the same rigorous insistence on transparency in respect of funding does not extend to appearances on TV or Radio. Thus, if an 'expert' appears to promote a particular therapy, vaccination, or social behaviour, he is not obliged to declare a vested interests or private sponsorship.
Comment: But the blatant tyranny hasn't deterred many in Melbourne: Thousands plan to protest against tyrannical 'Stage Four' lockdown measures in Melbourne