Exactly my feeling. As far as GW goes, SIRFLOX and now SARAH came under his watch. Maybe no-one knew better when they started, but if you look at the criticisms now levelled at SIRFLOX, the consenus is that it was designed to fail and incompetently carried out. What about his explanation for the delay in the results for SARAH, that it could be an adminstrative delay? And we were told it was due to "insufficient events". Forget the share dealing, getting the studies right was infinitely more important.
These studies lasted 5 years and cost tens of millions of dollars, and the lives of many cancer sufferers might well have ended differently if they had been better thought out and executed.
That said I think a lot of people will be very interested in the post mortem evaluation of SARAH. The future will be advanced by dissecting it and learning what happened, so it won't have been wasted. I firmly believe that something has distorted the results here, and I don't think it will take too long to find out what it was.
Fortunately I also believe that both FOXFIRE and SIRveNIB represent significant advances over SIRFLOX and SARAH. I think we are owed an explantaion though as to why SIRveNIB is not considered submissible to the FDA. Its become a potentially critical point.
Forget the share dealing, getting the studies right was infinitely more important.
(20min delay)