While most of Munro's points do in fact seem to be complete crap, the point about funding from Soros is reasonable (if for example, the study had found the opposite and had been funded by some right wing billionaire I suspect we'd all be quick to all that out)
That said, I'm probably erring on the side of the WHO at this point.
Usually when the plot thickens, it means some new and interesting information has come to light. I know that Soros funded the study, that was why I posted that "the point about funding from Soros is reasonable". The point in question was from the article posted which states
quote:Soros's group gave $46,000, and the Samuel Rubin Foundation gave $5,000. An anonymous donor, and another donor whose identity he does not know, provided the balance, Tirman said. The Lancet II study cost about $100,000, according to Tirman, including about $45,000 for publicity and travel. That means that nearly half of the study's funding came from an outspoken billionaire who has repeatedly criticized the Iraq campaign and who spent $30 million trying to defeat Bush in 2004.