“After review of the redacted language, I find that it reveals nothing about the FDA proceeding. Rather, the redacted language contains Dr. Scher’s private thoughts as expressed to a professional colleague.”

Mr. Hall went on to say, “[Y]ou believe that because Dr. Scher served in some official capacity, anything he may have said about Provenge is public information. Dr. Scher is not a government employee and he does not forfeit his right to have personal information and details of his life protected from public disclosure simply due to his service on a government committee. As mentioned above, the redacted language does not address the FDA’s decision.”
________

No doubt many would dispute Mr. Hall’s misguided opinion in this matter, including myself. Dr. Howard Scher certainly had no reservations about sharing his biased opinions with the FDA Commissioner in obvious attempt to derail the approval of Provenge. This writer also believes it is likely Dr. Scher was aware that his letter, co-written by a few other colorful people, would be published in the infamous Cancer Letter, an investment newsletter of dubious distinction.

Yes, Dr. Howard Scher’s biased opinions became very public indeed, and they also became public policy with a kind assist with the FDA Commissioner at the time, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach.

Maybe a little encouragement from powers that be a little further up the ladder will encourage a FOIA compliance from the NCI.