Category Archives: ENHANCE November 2007 Covington and Burling DC law firm

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]. . .?” notWas it routine. . .?” [Click to enlarge:]

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

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]. . .?” notWas it routine. . .?” [Click to enlarge:]

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

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]. . .?” notWas it routine. . .?” [Click to enlarge:]

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

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]. . .?” notWas it routine. . .?” [Click to enlarge:]

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

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]. . .?” notWas it routine. . .?” [Click to enlarge:]

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

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]. . .?” notWas it routine. . .?” [Click to enlarge:]

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

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]. . .?” notWas it routine. . .?” [Click to enlarge:]

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