Monsanto Co. Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Monsanto Co.

MTC 2.820

0.0%

Dec 2 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (910)	1/17/1999 6:10:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (2) of 2539

I don't entirely agree with Mr. Sashko's suggestion that the two writeups are about "different arms"; the second is an article which is a "re-hash" of the earlier study, possibly meant to make a name for the authors and/or stir up a controversy. And I also wonder if there are other interests and/or funding involved. Why explicitly mention Searle in a re-hash of a study already published? Does UPenn have funding sources other than Searle for this and other studies? Or did Searle not want the conclusions drawn in the second study to appear until after the drug was approved? Something isn't right here. The second article clearly states it is based on the study -- it is not a new study; i.e., "a report on the study appears in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, published January 5." And that study was completed well back into 1998. ...so it appears to me that UPenn wants to stir up a controversy now that the drug is approved. I just don't know where to point the finger...are we dealing with outside interests or not?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next