Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Well -- Mr. Kingham Doesn't Really Answer Question 11, at all, Does he?


[UPDATED -- 05.21.08 8:53 PM EDT: once again, Ed, that gentleman scholar at Pharmalot, has linked us, on this. Cool!]

One more snippet from Covington & Burling's April 25, 2008 Vytorin ENHANCE study timeline letter of response [See my earlier posts, parts one, and two, below] on behalf of Schering-Plough (among other clients) -- now, in what way, exactly, is this responsive to the Chairmen of two Congressional Committees, men backed with the inherent authority to issue subpoenas, or proceed toward contempt of Congress, for non-responsive/evasive/non-compliant written answers to investigations?

Take a look at the answer given -- does it answer the question asked, at all? The question was "Who decided [authorized]. . .?" not "Was it routine. . .?" [Click to enlarge:]



Yep -- I think Dr. Peter Rost (via redacted) has it just about right, here:

2 comments:

insider said...

Now we get to the core of the issue.

It would be interesting to know when the "blinded" data was first looked at.

I wonder how long after that shares and options got sold?

condor said...

Indeed, Insider, that is the very core of the issue. We shall see.

Thanks for your comment, and do stop back!

We may learn more on August 1, 2008 -- pointing skyward, now. . . .