B - come on, that has 'lawyer speak' all over it. The author is the real deal, ex executive editor of NEJM and current deputy editor of JAMA. For him to write what he wrote (not new evidence... re-interpretation...), either he attended every day of the trial (did not) / read every transcript (unlikely) or was told so by an attorney (highly likely) - IMO.
This guy would not ruin his reputation by making erroneous statements in a publication and emailing it to the the federal court. Bhatt's name is also on it. Yes he isn't an attorney but does Bhatt seem like a person that would sign his name on an erroneous publication?
I will ask my buddy, who has attended the trial, if he recalls that arguement being made.
This is my last post (#15) for today.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
