Category Archives: Grassley Sabatino SGP Schering Sunshine Cardioloists le

The full-text of Schering’s letter, refusing Sen. Grassley’s "Financial Sunshine" Request

In the interest of transparency — offering a more fullsome disclosure of the underlying newsworthy documents — and thus, it is hoped, allowing readers to make their own assessments of Schering’s widely-reported recent refusal to provide financial grant-and-contribution information, relative to medical organizations and “medical opinion leaders” (in the manner which Eli Lilly & Co., among others, have already voluntarily agreed to disclose), I thought it would be useful to make the entire-text of Schering’s letter to Senator Charles Grassley, (R-Iowa), available in an easy-view format.

Note that Sen. Grassley was not asking about PAC (political) contributions; similarly, the Senator was not asking about money to treating physicians, so much as he was asking about payments and grants to “opinion leaders” — cardiologists at major teaching hospitals, and the like. So, to my eye, much of this letter, while salutory, and presumptively-accurate, is entirely non-responsive to the Senator’s request. In any event, here it is — click it — to view full-sized image:

Make your own assesments, here: Is this letter responsive? Do you think most Americans really worry about whether their own local general practicioner (GP) doctor is “on the take” in some fashion? Or, do they worry more, that the so-called “leading experts in the field” have some undisclosed-reason to favor one course or treatment, over another? I think the latter; but you decide for yourself.

The full-text of Schering’s letter, refusing Sen. Grassley’s "Financial Sunshine" Request

In the interest of transparency — offering a more fullsome disclosure of the underlying newsworthy documents — and thus, it is hoped, allowing readers to make their own assessments of Schering’s widely-reported recent refusal to provide financial grant-and-contribution information, relative to medical organizations and “medical opinion leaders” (in the manner which Eli Lilly & Co., among others, have already voluntarily agreed to disclose), I thought it would be useful to make the entire-text of Schering’s letter to Senator Charles Grassley, (R-Iowa), available in an easy-view format.

Note that Sen. Grassley was not asking about PAC (political) contributions; similarly, the Senator was not asking about money to treating physicians, so much as he was asking about payments and grants to “opinion leaders” — cardiologists at major teaching hospitals, and the like. So, to my eye, much of this letter, while salutory, and presumptively-accurate, is entirely non-responsive to the Senator’s request. In any event, here it is — click it — to view full-sized image:

Make your own assesments, here: Is this letter responsive? Do you think most Americans really worry about whether their own local general practicioner (GP) doctor is “on the take” in some fashion? Or, do they worry more, that the so-called “leading experts in the field” have some undisclosed-reason to favor one course or treatment, over another? I think the latter; but you decide for yourself.

The full-text of Schering’s letter, refusing Sen. Grassley’s "Financial Sunshine" Request

In the interest of transparency — offering a more fullsome disclosure of the underlying newsworthy documents — and thus, it is hoped, allowing readers to make their own assessments of Schering’s widely-reported recent refusal to provide financial grant-and-contribution information, relative to medical organizations and “medical opinion leaders” (in the manner which Eli Lilly & Co., among others, have already voluntarily agreed to disclose), I thought it would be useful to make the entire-text of Schering’s letter to Senator Charles Grassley, (R-Iowa), available in an easy-view format.

Note that Sen. Grassley was not asking about PAC (political) contributions; similarly, the Senator was not asking about money to treating physicians, so much as he was asking about payments and grants to “opinion leaders” — cardiologists at major teaching hospitals, and the like. So, to my eye, much of this letter, while salutory, and presumptively-accurate, is entirely non-responsive to the Senator’s request. In any event, here it is — click it — to view full-sized image:

Make your own assesments, here: Is this letter responsive? Do you think most Americans really worry about whether their own local general practicioner (GP) doctor is “on the take” in some fashion? Or, do they worry more, that the so-called “leading experts in the field” have some undisclosed-reason to favor one course or treatment, over another? I think the latter; but you decide for yourself.

The full-text of Schering’s letter, refusing Sen. Grassley’s "Financial Sunshine" Request

In the interest of transparency — offering a more fullsome disclosure of the underlying newsworthy documents — and thus, it is hoped, allowing readers to make their own assessments of Schering’s widely-reported recent refusal to provide financial grant-and-contribution information, relative to medical organizations and “medical opinion leaders” (in the manner which Eli Lilly & Co., among others, have already voluntarily agreed to disclose), I thought it would be useful to make the entire-text of Schering’s letter to Senator Charles Grassley, (R-Iowa), available in an easy-view format.

Note that Sen. Grassley was not asking about PAC (political) contributions; similarly, the Senator was not asking about money to treating physicians, so much as he was asking about payments and grants to “opinion leaders” — cardiologists at major teaching hospitals, and the like. So, to my eye, much of this letter, while salutory, and presumptively-accurate, is entirely non-responsive to the Senator’s request. In any event, here it is — click it — to view full-sized image:

Make your own assesments, here: Is this letter responsive? Do you think most Americans really worry about whether their own local general practicioner (GP) doctor is “on the take” in some fashion? Or, do they worry more, that the so-called “leading experts in the field” have some undisclosed-reason to favor one course or treatment, over another? I think the latter; but you decide for yourself.

The full-text of Schering’s letter, refusing Sen. Grassley’s "Financial Sunshine" Request

In the interest of transparency — offering a more fullsome disclosure of the underlying newsworthy documents — and thus, it is hoped, allowing readers to make their own assessments of Schering’s widely-reported recent refusal to provide financial grant-and-contribution information, relative to medical organizations and “medical opinion leaders” (in the manner which Eli Lilly & Co., among others, have already voluntarily agreed to disclose), I thought it would be useful to make the entire-text of Schering’s letter to Senator Charles Grassley, (R-Iowa), available in an easy-view format.

Note that Sen. Grassley was not asking about PAC (political) contributions; similarly, the Senator was not asking about money to treating physicians, so much as he was asking about payments and grants to “opinion leaders” — cardiologists at major teaching hospitals, and the like. So, to my eye, much of this letter, while salutory, and presumptively-accurate, is entirely non-responsive to the Senator’s request. In any event, here it is — click it — to view full-sized image:

Make your own assesments, here: Is this letter responsive? Do you think most Americans really worry about whether their own local general practicioner (GP) doctor is “on the take” in some fashion? Or, do they worry more, that the so-called “leading experts in the field” have some undisclosed-reason to favor one course or treatment, over another? I think the latter; but you decide for yourself.

The full-text of Schering’s letter, refusing Sen. Grassley’s "Financial Sunshine" Request

In the interest of transparency — offering a more fullsome disclosure of the underlying newsworthy documents — and thus, it is hoped, allowing readers to make their own assessments of Schering’s widely-reported recent refusal to provide financial grant-and-contribution information, relative to medical organizations and “medical opinion leaders” (in the manner which Eli Lilly & Co., among others, have already voluntarily agreed to disclose), I thought it would be useful to make the entire-text of Schering’s letter to Senator Charles Grassley, (R-Iowa), available in an easy-view format.

Note that Sen. Grassley was not asking about PAC (political) contributions; similarly, the Senator was not asking about money to treating physicians, so much as he was asking about payments and grants to “opinion leaders” — cardiologists at major teaching hospitals, and the like. So, to my eye, much of this letter, while salutory, and presumptively-accurate, is entirely non-responsive to the Senator’s request. In any event, here it is — click it — to view full-sized image:

Make your own assesments, here: Is this letter responsive? Do you think most Americans really worry about whether their own local general practicioner (GP) doctor is “on the take” in some fashion? Or, do they worry more, that the so-called “leading experts in the field” have some undisclosed-reason to favor one course or treatment, over another? I think the latter; but you decide for yourself.

The full-text of Schering’s letter, refusing Sen. Grassley’s "Financial Sunshine" Request

In the interest of transparency — offering a more fullsome disclosure of the underlying newsworthy documents — and thus, it is hoped, allowing readers to make their own assessments of Schering’s widely-reported recent refusal to provide financial grant-and-contribution information, relative to medical organizations and “medical opinion leaders” (in the manner which Eli Lilly & Co., among others, have already voluntarily agreed to disclose), I thought it would be useful to make the entire-text of Schering’s letter to Senator Charles Grassley, (R-Iowa), available in an easy-view format.

Note that Sen. Grassley was not asking about PAC (political) contributions; similarly, the Senator was not asking about money to treating physicians, so much as he was asking about payments and grants to “opinion leaders” — cardiologists at major teaching hospitals, and the like. So, to my eye, much of this letter, while salutory, and presumptively-accurate, is entirely non-responsive to the Senator’s request. In any event, here it is — click it — to view full-sized image:

Make your own assesments, here: Is this letter responsive? Do you think most Americans really worry about whether their own local general practicioner (GP) doctor is “on the take” in some fashion? Or, do they worry more, that the so-called “leading experts in the field” have some undisclosed-reason to favor one course or treatment, over another? I think the latter; but you decide for yourself.