Scherlings-got-Plowed today writes how the first case reciting Sen. Grassley's theory of the irrelevance, from a legal point of view, of the blinded/unblinded ENHANCE data-sets -- has been filed.
The case is a consumer fraud case, filed June 13, 2008,by a health-care plan in Minnesota captioned Electrical Workers 242 Health and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc, et al.,(Case No. 2:08-cv-03025-DMC, Complaint filed June 13, 2008, US Dist. Ct. NJ).
So where did Senator Grassley originally get this idea that the data didn't have to be unblinded?
We don't know for sure, but it looks as if PharmaGossip and yours truly during his writing for BrandweekNRX may have been first with this concept:
Read Prominent cardiologist: Schering-Plough could have known the result of Vytorin trial before unblinding data and New evidence indicates Schering-Plough insiders knew the Vytorin trial was "a bust" on March 13, 2007 from January 30 on BrandweekNRX.
