When the Gov top scientific advisor has £600,000 shares in a vaccine company

[Animalbeast]

Imagine you live in an area where some company wants to knock down your house to build an airport. You and your neighbours  don’t want that and refuse their offer. Some “independent economists” comes along and shows you a bunch of graphs and basically advises you to sell because in 10 years your area will be shit and your homes will be worth less than you’re being offered by the airport company. Later you find out that
1) this independent economic advisor used to work for the company that wants to build the airport
2) he owns 600,000 shares in that company

What will you honestly think about his advice? 


Many of us watched or have seen the very strange briefing by Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance a few days ago, prepping us for the PM’s own announcement. The two scientists who went on tv and showed a very unscientific graph predicting infection figures by October, but then saying “this is not a prediction”. The perfect exercise in fear mongering and making the public accept what ever the gov decides to do in the next few weeks. Memories Collin Powell’s Iraq WMD graph...

Today it turns out that Patrick Vallance previously held a top position at GSK and was given shares worth millions when he left. £5m he’s already cashed and 600000 he still holds. How can he not have a conflict of interest? Surely this explains why scientists are ignoring the fact that 6000 daily infections now = 30 deaths a day. Whereas in April 6000 daily infections = 600 deaths a day... yet they are talking as if we are in the same situation as we were in March

[lostandfound]

Another lame conspiracy theory IMO.

[JamesKW]

why scientists are ignoring the fact that 6000 daily infections now = 30 deaths a day. Whereas in April 6000 daily infections = 600 deaths a day... yet they are talking as if we are in the same situation as we were in March

Even though I am in favour of herd immunity,the 800 a day deaths in April is after a time lapse,so it relates to cases at least four weeks previously,when the Govt. state it was 100,000 a day (personally I think it was much higher than this,I reckon at least 50% of the London population had it in February/March).The 6000 cases today will not reflect in deaths for at least another four weeks.

[cunningman]

personally I think it was much higher than this,I reckon at least 50% of the London population had it in February/March).

So why does that not show up in the ONS antibody statistics?

[Gordon Bennett]

So he's got a background in the private sector? Doesn't bother me one iota. Frankly, I'd rather have someone of that ilk sorting things out as opposed to a career public servant.

[JamesKW]

So why does that not show up in the ONS antibody statistics?

I doubt many have had antibody tests,its hard even to get normal tests.I had mild symptoms in March,everyone in my office had the same symptoms,we all passed it on to our famiies,although surprisingly none of them showed symptoms,and then they passed it around their schools,work places.No one has had an anti body test as far as I know.

[Animalbeast]

Another lame conspiracy theory IMO.

You’re opinion is wrong External Link/Members Only and that’s a fact. The man owns £600,000 shares  in GSK, the man previously held a top position there.

Would you seek and trust independent and impartial advice about, say broadband internet, from someone wearing a Virgin Media uniform? No you clearly wouldn’t, or maybe you’re a fool and you would.

If you sought independent and impartial advice and then you found out that your advisor held shares in the company in which he was advising you towards would you not feel betrayed?

[lostandfound]

You’re opinion is wrong External Link/Members Only and that’s a fact. The man owns £600,000 shares  in GSK, the man previously held a top position there.

Would you seek and trust independent and impartial advice about, say broadband internet, from someone wearing a Virgin Media uniform? No you clearly wouldn’t, or maybe you’re a fool and you would.

If you sought independent and impartial advice and then you found out that your advisor held shares in the company in which he was advising towards would you not feel betrayed?

Uninformed bollocks IMO.

It would be weird as hell if GSK were not developing / providing vaccine as they are a UK based global pharmaceutical giant - just one of six vaccine projects the gov has so far taken out options on.

We are lucky to have people of Chris Witty's and Patrick Vallance's experience and ability.

The gutter journalists who peddle this kind of tripe are not fit to lick their boots. The Scum and the Daily Fail! Don't make me laugh.

Today a great journalist is being mourned - Harold Evans. Took about 5 minutes for him to fall out with Rupert Murdoch and leave the Times. Shows the gulf between class and the gutter.

If Vallance did not have experience of private industry, he would be criticised for lacking that experience. If you work at the level he did share options are part of your remuneration. SOP.

[Animalbeast]

Uninformed bollocks IMO.

It would be weird as hell if GSK were not developing / providing vaccine as they are a UK based global pharmaceutical giant - just one of six vaccine projects the gov has so far taken out options on.

We are lucky to have people of Chris Witty's and Patrick Vallance's experience and ability.

The gutter journalists who peddle this kind of tripe are not fit to lick their boots. The Scum and the Daily Fail! Don't make me laugh.

Today a great journalist is being mourned - Harold Evans. Took about 5 minutes for him to fall out with Rupert Murdoch and leave the Times. Shows the gulf between class and the gutter.

If Vallance did not have experience of private industry, he would be criticised for lacking that experience. If you work at the level he did share options are part of your remuneration. SOP.

You’re not answering my simple questions... but you expect a whole nation to believe that Vallance has no conflict of interest when he says “we need lockdown and restrictions until there is a vaccine”

[lostandfound]

You’re not answering my simple questions... but you expect a whole nation to believe that Vallance has no conflict of interest when he says “we need lockdown and restrictions until there is a vaccine”

As far as I am concerned there is no reason to question Patrick Vallance's integrity.

As I've explained it would be odd if Vallance did not have shares in GSK given he was a very senior manager there, and also odd if GSK were not developing a vaccine, and if they were not one of the options for a vaccine being considered by the gov.

Given he is at the eye of the storm it is also to be expected that the gutter press will seek to undermine him.

As I said earlier - a lame conspiracy theory. End of.

[Animalbeast]

As far as I am concerned there is no reason to question Patrick Vallance's integrity.

As I've explained it would be odd if Vallance did not have shares in GSK given he was a very senior manager there, and also odd if GSK were not developing a vaccine, and if they were not one of the options for a vaccine being considered by the gov.

Given he is at the eye of the storm it is also to be expected that the gutter press will seek to undermine him.

As I said earlier - a lame conspiracy theory. End of.

Ok gentlemen, here we have someone who if a company wanted to buy properties in his area and the locals resisted, he would not find it objectionable if the independent and impartial advisor that came and advised everyone to sell had shares in the company that the neighbourhood was fighting against.

[lostandfound]

Ok gentlemen, here we have someone who if a company wanted to buy properties in his area and the locals resisted, he would not find it objectionable if the independent and impartial advisor that came and advised everyone to sell had shares in the company that the neighbourhood was fighting against.

No, that is not what I said. You would have to be very hard of thinking to believe that it was.

[Animalbeast]

No, that is not what I said. You would have to be very hard of thinking to believe that it was.

The very first paragraph in my original post about this news makes this point and asks this question. Here it is again.

Imagine you live in an area where some company wants to knock down your house to build an airport. You and your neighbours  don’t want that and refuse their offer. Some “independent economists” comes along and shows you a bunch of graphs and basically advises you to sell because in 10 years your area will be shit and your homes will be worth less than you’re being offered by the airport company. Later you find out that
1) this independent economic advisor used to work for the company that wants to build the airport
2) he owns 600,000 shares in that company

What will you honestly think about his advice? 

[lostandfound]

The very first paragraph in my original post about this news makes this point and asks this question. Here it is again.

That's your argument. If you want to talk about property developers you carry on.

As for the eminent and respected scientist Patrick Vallance, I've already stated my view several times over.

[winkywanky]

External Link/Members Only and that’s a fact. The man owns £600,000 shares  in GSK, the man previously held a top position there.

Would you seek and trust independent and impartial advice about, say broadband internet, from someone wearing a Virgin Media uniform?

On the face of it there's a potential for a conflict of interest here I would say.

Worth saying though, that a conflict of interest doesn't mean someone is exerting inappropriate influence for their own personal gain, just that it creates a possibility of that occurring.

In more routine and 'established matters' this type of thing is prevented at high level in and around govt so that decisions aren't seen as tainted. Of course, these are currently extraordinary circumstances by any measure.

I couldn't read much more than the headline because I don't subscribe to the Telegraph. But, from the piece: Government denies claims of potential conflict of interest, maintaining he is not involved in commercial decisions on coronavirus vaccines.

I think the fact that this is out in the open now will mean the govt know their decisions are under extra scrutiny. I can't see it as a problem as long as procurement procedures for vaccines are transparent (they have been so far), and as others have said, the guy brings unparallelled expertise to his role in all of this.

[Animalbeast]

That's your argument. If you want to talk about property developers you carry on.

As for the eminent and respected scientist Patrick Vallance, I've already stated my view several times over.

You understand my point and analogy but answering yes proves my point about Vallance, answering no makes you seem stupid or a liar. So you’re being intentionally disingenuous about your understanding of the point I’m making.

[lostandfound]

You understand my point and analogy but answering yes proves my point about Vallance, answering no makes you seem stupid or a liar. So you’re being intentionally disingenuous about your understanding of the point I’m making.

Property Developers wanting to knock down your home to build an airport.

Eminent scientist devoted to public service.

These are two very different things. On which basis your attempt to conflate the two is silly and so I do not give it consideration.

[Animalbeast]

Property Developers wanting to knock down your home to build an airport.

Eminent scientist devoted to public service.

These are two very different things. On which basis your attempt to conflate the two is silly and so I do not give it consideration.

Airports are a public service. The contracts to who builds them gets decided by the government. So no not two very different things.

[lostandfound]

Airports are a public service. The contracts to who builds them gets decided by the government. So no not two very different things.

When I was learning English at primary school I was taught the difference between the object and subject of a sentence.

In the sentences I wrote above "Property developers" and "Eminent scientist" are the subjects. These are very different. Your attempt to conflate them is silly.

I've now made the same point maybe a half dozen times over. I've made my view very clear, but I am tired of repeating it, so I'm off to do something else now.

[Adoniron]

I'm more bothered about the many millions of pounds worth of government contracts being given to friends of Cummings and Tory MPs without any proper tendering process.

[Animalbeast]

When I was learning English at primary school I was taught the difference between the object and subject of a sentence.

In the sentences I wrote above "Property developers" and "Eminent scientist" are the subjects. These are very different. Your attempt to conflate them is silly.

I've now made the same point maybe a half dozen times over. I've made my view very clear, but I am tired of repeating it, so I'm off to do something else now.

Maybe when you learned about life, business , and politics through living you should have taken on board the meaning of “concepts”...

Again, today it’s an “eminent scientist” with shares that maybe a conflict of interest....  tomorrow it could be an “eminent economist” with shares that maybe a conflict of interest. What’s the difference, both are humans why does the scientist get a pass in your eyes?

[RedKettle]

You’re not answering my simple questions... but you expect a whole nation to believe that Vallance has no conflict of interest when he says “we need lockdown and restrictions until there is a vaccine”

GSK are operating the vaccine project as a not for profit - good enough?!

[Doc Holliday]

(personally I think it was much higher than this,I reckon at least 50% of the London population had it in February/March).s

The latest ONS antibody survey suggests around 17% for London and probably averaging half that for the rest of the UK. Even at these low levels it may have produced a degree of herd immunity in the capital and partly explain why the cases have been slower to rise again in London than other parts of the UK?

[Animalbeast]

GSK are operating the vaccine project as a not for profit - good enough?!

Still not answering the question.  So no not good enough. In fact it’s a lie as this;
“Overall GSK does not expect to profit from our portfolio of collaborations for COVID-19 vaccines during this pandemic. As any short-term profit generated will be invested in support of coronavirus related research and long-term pandemic preparedness, either through GSK's internal investments, or with external partners.”

Does not mean that GSK have suddenly become a charity. Shares will obviously skyrocket with a vaccine, people will pay for their other drugs etc and in the long term they will make a profit from any potential vaccine for COVID 19

[LLPunting]

OP do you have a pension?
Savings and investments in managed trusts?  If so have you specifically instructed them to avoid the pharma industry?

If you're so concerned about vested interests then you would be doing yourself a greater favour by "investigating" all the politicians who are actually making the decisions.  Advice from Sage et al is all being scrutinised and challenged by their peers and the press,  Vallance is one of many supplying advice to HMG, by all means go find out the investments of all the scientists to build your tinfoil rant.

Ultimately you're a poor version of a crackpot conspiracist because you're chasing the least credible fantasy.
The real danger is in Trump and Johnson's investment portfolios and vested interests and industry relationships.  Now be a good boy and go play with he of the "I don't really know why exponential growth and infectious disease are mentioned in the same articles." 

[Animalbeast]

OP do you have a pension?
Savings and investments in managed trusts?  If so have you specifically instructed them to avoid the pharma industry?

If you're so concerned about vested interests then you would be doing yourself a greater favour by "investigating" all the politicians who are actually making the decisions.  Advice from Sage et al is all being scrutinised and challenged by their peers and the press,  Vallance is one of many supplying advice to HMG, by all means go find out the investments of all the scientists to build your tinfoil rant.

Ultimately you're a poor version of a crackpot conspiracist because you're chasing the least credible fantasy.
The real danger is in Trump and Johnson's investment portfolios and vested interests and industry relationships.  Now be a good boy and go play with he of the "I don't really know why exponential growth and infectious disease are mentioned in the same articles."

I’m I advising government policy.... you utter muppet.

You always have chatted the upmost crap and are not worth responding to.

[anotherwoody69]

GSK share price in January, before Covid-19 £17.75

GSK share price now, after Covid-19 £14.50

Loss on £600,000 worth of shares so far this year £135,000.

So thats working well for him so far then...................

[Charlie Chalk]

You’re opinion is wrong External Link/Members Only and that’s a fact. The man owns £600,000 shares  in GSK, the man previously held a top position there.

Would you seek and trust independent and impartial advice about, say broadband internet, from someone wearing a Virgin Media uniform? No you clearly wouldn’t, or maybe you’re a fool and you would.

If you sought independent and impartial advice and then you found out that your advisor held shares in the company in which he was advising you towards would you not feel betrayed?

I'd happily seek advice (in theory, before anyone starts slagging off Virgin) on the technicalities and concepts of broadband from someone wearing a Virgin Media uniform. What I wouldn't do is seek impartial advice from that person as to which provider is the best. That would be a conflict of interest.

Same principle here - I will take Patrick Vallance's advice (as a well respected scientist) as to how we should act to control the spread of Covid. Whether or not he owns shares in GSK is irrelevant in this context, since any advice he gives on lockdown measures, etc cannot materially benefit his through his ownership of any shares. I wouldn't expect his advice to be taken when (if) there is a decision to be made as to which vaccine the govt should buy, since there would be a conflict of interest; if GSK were chosen their share price would increase and he would benefit.

OP, you haven't been able to show how Vallance's ownership of shares is potentially affecting any advice he is giving at the moment and therefore demonstrating a conflict of interest. As long as he has no influence on the procurement process (assuming there is a choice at that time) then there will continue to be no conflict of interest.

[JamesKW]

The latest ONS antibody survey suggests around 17% for London and probably averaging half that for the rest of the UK. Even at these low levels it may have produced a degree of herd immunity in the capital and partly explain why the cases have been slower to rise again in London than other parts of the UK?

If its as contagious as what they say it is much higher than 17%,the first person to die in UK was 31st January which suggests they caught it early January so it was around for much of January to March.We were all sardine like on public transport without face masks coughing and sneezing all over each other,also in pubs,clubs,theatres,football grounds etc.It was then spread in our work places,to our families,their workplaces,to our children and their schools and so on.80% dont even show symptoms,so if they are saying its 17% it is not that contagious,they cant have it both ways.Also it was around for at least the worse part of last years flu season January to March.   

[tintin100]

GSK share price in January, before Covid-19 £17.75

GSK share price now, after Covid-19 £14.50

Loss on £600,000 worth of shares so far this year £135,000.

So thats working well for him so far then...................

Utter madness post by the OP, besides the GSK vaccine, the government intends to buy other vaccines too. Sounds like a witch hunt with no merits.

[cunningman]

If its as contagious as what they say it is much higher than 17%

You are asserting something that is at odds with the fact of the sampling results, which I believe is of enough people to be statistically reliable.
That does not seem a rational thing to do.

I do understand that it seems counter-intuitive.  I felt like crap through most of Jan and Feb, but I'm not going to make assumptions that I had anything more than a cold.

[JamesKW]

You are asserting something that is at odds with the fact of the sampling results, which I believe is of enough people to be statistically reliable.
That does not seem a rational thing to do.

I do understand that it seems counter-intuitive.  I felt like crap through most of Jan and Feb, but I'm not going to make assumptions that I had anything more than a cold.

Possibly but were you a high risk chance of catching it,did you travel on the tube,crowded public transport,work in a large office,have school children,go to crowded indoor events with lots of people,use cheap prossies.I am a high risk person of catching it and had mild symptoms.I knew I was high risk and avoided mingling with old people.

[piotrskut]

GSK are operating the vaccine project as a not for profit - good enough?!

maybe not making a profit but i bet their shares will go up, meaning paddy will make a mint out of this. stands to reason scientists should only be a part of the process, but where are the businessmen on this sage decision thing?  why aren't all parts of society being represented (and don't say politicians as they are self serving fucknuts).

[timsussex]

You’re not answering my simple questions... but you expect a whole nation to believe that Vallance has no conflict of interest when he says “we need lockdown and restrictions until there is a vaccine”

Are you suggesting that we have any other choice ?

[Animalbeast]

I'd happily seek advice (in theory, before anyone starts slagging off Virgin) on the technicalities and concepts of broadband from someone wearing a Virgin Media uniform. What I wouldn't do is seek impartial advice from that person as to which provider is the best. That would be a conflict of interest.

Same principle here - I will take Patrick Vallance's advice (as a well respected scientist) as to how we should act to control the spread of Covid. Whether or not he owns shares in GSK is irrelevant in this context, since any advice he gives on lockdown measures, etc cannot materially benefit his through his ownership of any shares. I wouldn't expect his advice to be taken when (if) there is a decision to be made as to which vaccine the govt should buy, since there would be a conflict of interest; if GSK were chosen their share price would increase and he would benefit.

OP, you haven't been able to show how Vallance's ownership of shares is potentially affecting any advice he is giving at the moment and therefore demonstrating a conflict of interest. As long as he has no influence on the procurement process (assuming there is a choice at that time) then there will continue to be no conflict of interest.

Thank you for answering the question. I raised the issue and question for discussion, it’s not a which hunt but when we can no longer question things without being attacked that I think is bad. I am concerned that he’s solution is lockdown / restrictions until vaccine when we have seen other nations getting back to normal without a second wave, so I would like to hear different opinions from different scientists. Thus far, that may be his honest opinion or it maybe where his conflict of interest comes it. The briefing with him and Whitty looked like an exercise in fear mongering and was not scientific at all.

[magpie252]

we have seen other nations getting back to normal without a second wave

Show me one country (who's government we can believe to report figures at least in some measure truthfully) were Covid case numbers aren't currently on the rise.

[Charlie Chalk]

Thank you for answering the question. I raised the issue and question for discussion, it’s not a which hunt but when we can no longer question things without being attacked that I think is bad. I am concerned that he’s solution is lockdown / restrictions until vaccine when we have seen other nations getting back to normal without a second wave, so I would like to hear different opinions from different scientists. Thus far, that may be his honest opinion or it maybe where his conflict of interest comes it. The briefing with him and Whitty looked like an exercise in fear mongering and was not scientific at all.

I think there are 2 problems with that:

1) As Magpie said, where else in the world are there verifiable figures for Covid being under control without lockdown measures being in place?
2) The only dissenting voices from the scientific community I've heard since the most recent measures have said they don't go far enough, not that they are too draconian.

[Doc Holliday]

so if they are saying its 17% it is not that contagious, they cant have it both ways.

Of course you can. Chickenpox is highly contagious, but only if a child is in contact with someone who has it. The rate of chickenpox dropped off the scale during lockdown when schools were closed.

In January/February if the virus was around in the UK it was at very low levels and only really took off exponentially as people returned from holidaying (from Europe especially). That said there was data this week that of those people who have died who were under the age of 65 around 70% probably caught the virus pre lockdown which would have been in March.

.. they can trace back the first death in the UK to December

.. the first person to die in UK was 31st January

So which one is it? 

[Marmalade]

If the "top scientific advisor" had given good advice and it had been heeded, then no. it would not have bothered me.

That the government has not handled things with much common sense, then questions are always asked. Maybe the guy was not influenced by his shares, but technically there is a conflict of interest IMO.

[JamesKW]

So which one is it? 

I read the December case in the economist and couldnt really link it anywhere when you asked,I went with the January date because that is easily linkable but if it was December it supports my case even more.Chicken pox is a good example because it is highly contagious and most of us have it when we are young.We likley catch it many times during our life especially when we have children but we have built up an immunity against it.

[magpie252]

the first person to die in UK was 31st January which suggests they caught it early January

The first person to die in the UK with confirmed Corona Virus was on the 5th March at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading
External Link/Members Only

The first British person to die (with confirmed Corona Virus) was onboard the Diamond Princess in February
External Link/Members Only

Don't let facts get in the way of your conspiracy

[JamesKW]

External Link/Members Only

I suppose we can all look around for different links as I said I read in the Economist it was in December.One of your links is February the other is March,evidence may have subsequently changed.I dont know what conspiracy you are talking about, I am not a conspiracy theorist I have never denied the existence of COVID,just the methods of dealing with it.

[Animalbeast]

External Link/Members Only

I suppose we can all look around for different links as I said I read in the Economist it was in December.One of your links is February the other is March,evidence may have subsequently changed.I dont know what conspiracy you are talking about, I am not a conspiracy theorist I have never denied the existence of COVID,just the methods of dealing with it.

I agree with you. Don’t have sources just makes sense when you think about it.

People get confused because the first official U.K. death was in March. But anyone with reasonable thinking skills can figure out that... if the virus was identified in China in December, only because a Dr spoke out, it might have been spreading in China for several months maybe much longer with Dr’s mistaking symptoms for flu etc or too scared to speak out. How often do doctors fail to diagnose or misdiagnose existing and known conditions? So imagine when it comes to a new virus that doesn’t cause unique symptoms, most won’t realise they are dealing with a novel virus.

So it’s highly likely that patient zero in the U.K. was much before March as was the first death, but it wasn’t diagnosed as COVID 19 because Dr’s didn’t know about it.

[magpie252]

I'm still waiting for your to name a country where Covid case's aren't on the rise?

[JamesKW]

I'm still waiting for your to name a country where Covid case's aren't on the rise?

COVID cases are on the rise everywhere,but lots of countries have had lockdowns,some much more severe than ours,India,Peru,Israel,South Africa,Phillipines.In all countries once the lockdown is lifted the virus comes back and often much harder in the countries that had the most severe lockdowns.

[Wadebridge]

The virus seems to have come back 'with a vengeance' only in those countries that lifted their lockdowns before having virtually eliminated covid cases.
By that I mean the countries still had officially recorded, known, cases in the several hundred or more.
Compare the 'Ozzies' and the 'Enzedders' for example.
I believe the resurgence situation is not as bad in NZ; where their govt had virtually elimitated the virus; compared to Australia; whose govt was more lax and still had cases in the several hundreds.
I might be wrong, but that was my observation.

[JamesKW]

I believe the resurgence situation is not as bad in NZ; where their govt had virtually elimitated the virus; compared to Australia; whose govt was more lax and still had cases in the several hundreds.
I might be wrong, but that was my observation.

I guess NZ will always be the one success storey,it has about 5m people and not connected to anyone,quite high GDP and good medical facilities,it can afford a one off severe lockdown.Maybe we could have afforded it at first,we would have still had a significant number that would have ignored the rules,but it is too late now,we have wasted our money,destroyed the economy,we can no longer afford the full scale lockdown required.

[RLondon99]

This Patrick Vallance shares-in-GSK conspiracy theory is missing one essential fact.

Vallance's shares are deferred bonus and do not vest until 2021. He can't sell these shares because he doesn't actually own them until next year. And he sold all the vested shares he did own.