[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:
Showing posts with label ENHANCE November 2007 Covington and Burling DC law firm Richard Kingham partner FDA DTC Stupak Dingell May 8 2008 Hearing May 21 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ENHANCE November 2007 Covington and Burling DC law firm Richard Kingham partner FDA DTC Stupak Dingell May 8 2008 Hearing May 21 2008. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Well -- Mr. Kingham Doesn't Really Answer Question 11, at all, Does he?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
