In fact, I'll bet 25 brand new, gleaming 2010-minted silver dollars (payable to Jim's charity of choice) that his continuing predictions of a Merck statute of limitations win in the United States Supreme Court (opinion likely to issue in the Summer of 2010) are off-base. Here's his snippet, from this morning:
. . . .The Supremes like to keep things simple. They’re going to look at the warnings investors had and make a decision as to which was the crucial one. And when the FDA says Merck "misrepresents the safety profile for Vioxx," and the stock loses more than four bucks, that’s the kind of warning that can’t be ignored.
Merck’s argument may contain some technical chutzpah, but the company is still likely to win. . . .
I. Don't. Think. So. When Justice Antonin Scalia (just a little right of Atilla-the-Hun!) comes out attacking the proffered arguments of big business, you know there's gonna' be a tall glass o' "shut-up juice" served.
Jim? Care to make a very-friendly wager?
"Paging Jim Edwards. . . at bNet Pharma. . . Mr. Edwards. . . .?"