Paul Thacker fancies himself a journalist that exposes unethical industry-academic collusion and impropriety. The problem is, he's easily fooled. He spawns false information that upon publication is frequently either retracted or corrected after publication. Less credible media leave his word puddle uncorrected. He's not very smart, and is an incredibly boring, rambling writer. He is not analytical, not scientific-- instead he actively cherry picks and warps information to conform to the narrative he (or his sponsors?) wants told. His hit pieces get a pathetically few retweets and shares. He's largely irrelevant, even to anti-biotech folks, which is why I never wanted to give him the sick glee, exposure, or personal jollies by publishing a critical analysis of one of his (boring) tomes. However, with the intent to harass, he continually uses social media to cite his own shoddy work as authoritative evidence that others (especially me) are corporate pawns, swo