X hits on this document

540 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

161 / 170

11

record that I think - and may be this was an inappropriate way to use the vote, but I

12

needed to actually say that I wanted to limit how it was labelled as well. I am not as

13

comfortable saying yes for everything. This is okay. I don’t think they proved that. It

14

needs to be a relatively restricted patient population.

20

DR. BURMAN: Thank you.

21

DR. LEVITSKY: I voted yes, but it was not a fully unqualified yes I had

2

Don’t worry about it. If you are unsure, re-press your choice again and we will capture

3

everybody’s vote. If you can all retry again please, your vote, and you are allowed to

4

change your mind.

7

DR. LESAR: I voted yes.

8

DR. SAVAGE: I voted yes.

9

DR. KILLION: I voted yes.

10

DR. TEERLINK: I voted no. So, and that’s mostly just to get into the

17

Teerlink just said, and the fact that really the numbers of events are too low to provide an

18

adequate assessment other than the fact it’s a very restricted population. So it doesn’t

19

really give us a good overall assessment of cardiovascular safety.

Scribes, LLC Toll Free 1-800-675-8846 www.scribesllc.com

1

DR. TRAN: Go ahead and press your vote. It will continue to blink.

5

DR. BURMAN: The answer for the record is, the voting is “Yes” ten;

160

6

“No,” two; and “Abstain” zero. We will go around starting on this side, yes.

15

DR. BURMAN: Thank you.

16

DR. WYNE: I voted no. The reason is a combination of what Dr.

22

some of the same concerns.

23

24

DR. FELNER: I voted yes. I think according to the recommendations

that were made this summer, that’s the reason why this came up from the July conference

Document info
Document views540
Page views540
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 17:12:02 UTC 2016
Pages170
Paragraphs7975
Words54271

Comments