Somebody is trying hard, but having being unable to attack the R-IT study itself, he has fallen back on the inane strategy of criticizing the way the results have been released....it looks as though sombody is desperate to bash Vascepa and is using naive Docs to do his dirty work.
One might hope, but I expect it was just a paid hit piece, and so they got their pay...
Nah, it appeared initially in Kaiser Health News, which is actually reputable. The main thing that is highly suspicious is that it got disseminated to so many different websites so rapidly--I've never seen that happen with another article from KHN.
It doesn't change the fact that the author him or herself clearly had some sort of agenda or was abysmally unaware of how and why a primary end point would be released while the rest of the data is embargoed until the meeting. And if the latter is the case, that writer either needs to get educated or write for an auto trade publication or something.
And the doctors interviewed in that article really should have known better.
I mean literally almost every major trial result goes through this same process. There's nothing seedy or unusual about it.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
