CareToLive’s continual pursuit of the infamous personal opinion Dr. Howard Scher offered to NCI’s Alison Martin, hit a brick wall again January 29th, when William H. Hall, the Director of the News Division of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, voted against handing Scher’s email over to CareToLive as requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Hall made some outrageous claims. Mr. Hall writes:

“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.”

Mr. Hall’s full letter appears below.

CareToLive would like to point out Mr. Hall’s errors.

Dr. Scher was a government employee when he wrote his personal opinion to Alison Martin. Scher wrote it one day after he served on the Provenge Advisory Committee.

The evidence will show that Scher was already planning on supplementing, as well as contradicting his own opinions at the Advisory hearing, by drafting a follow up letter to the FDA with regards to Provenge. Scher frantically lobbied the FDA not to approve Provenge.

Prior to the Provenge Advisory Committee, Scher signed a waiver which stated he was a special Government employee:

http://caretolive.com/2007-4291-w-07-Sche-208r.pdf

In addition, in the case CTL vs. FDA, the Department of Justice stated Scher must be granted immunity since he is a government official.

http://www.caretolive.com/Ctlscherdismmotion.pdf

At Page 13

Drs. Pazdur and Sher must be granted qualified immunity in their individual capacities at this stage of the litigation on plaintiff’s claims that they violated the United States Constitution.

At Page 14

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 18–19. Qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.””

Mr. Hall emphasizes that the redacted language in Scher’s email did not address the FDA’s decision on Provenge. That misses the point that Scher was trying to influence the FDA’s decision as this email was sent prior to the FDA making its decision to delay the approval of Provenge.

It is clear that Scher was seeking information and assistance from NCI employee Alison Martin as to how best to understand the FDA process, so as to most effectively influence it, to get the result he desired.

http://caretolive.com/NCI-FOIA-Response.pdf

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

——-Original Message——–

From: Howard Scher

To: Martin, Alison (NIH/NCI) [E]

Sent: Fri, Mar 30 21:14:28 2007

Subject: Re: With your blessings – will circulate to authors this week

What did you think of the ODAC?

——-Original Message——–

From: Martin, Alison (NIH/NCI) [E] [mail to:martina@ctep.nci.hih.gov]

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:49 PM

To: Scher, Howard I. / Medicine

Subject: Re: With your blessings – will circulate to authors this week

Couldn’t go but it is quite the buzz at NCI -  not sure we understand - not sure it meant it would be approved. You were there - please tell me if you were convinced.

——-Original Message——–

From: Scher, Howard

Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 8:49 AM

To: Martin, Alison (NIH/NCI) [E]

Subject:   [ PERSONAL INFORMATION WITHHELD ]

Body:  [ PERSONAL INFORMATION WITHHELD ]

Howard I. Scher, M.D.

D. Wayne Calloway Chair in Urologic Oncology

Department of Medicine
Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers

Memorial Sloan-Kettering C ancer Center

1275 York Ave.

New York, NY 10021

Tel; Administrative: 646-422-4323

Clinical: 646-422-4330

FAX: 212-988-0851

Email: Scher@mskcc.org

——-Original Message——–

From: Martin, Alison (NIH/NCI) [E] [mail to:martina@ctep.nci.hih.gov]

To: Scher, Howard I. / Medicine

Sent: Sat Mar 31  6:15:05 2007

Su bject: Re: With your blessings – will circulate to authors this week

Glad to hear letter is being drafted. If that division’s vote suggests it be considered for approval, I was wondering if it then could go to the ODA, which is more clinically savy, i.e., this is just a step in the process.

Here is Mr. Hall’s full letter:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201

This is in response to your October 27, 2008, letter in which you appealed the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) decision to withhold email language between Dr. Howard Scher and Alison Martin, National Cancer Institute (NCI) regarding Dendreon Corporation’s Provenge cancer drug.

In your appeal you first state that Exemption 6 does not apply because the email exchange is not a “similar” file with the definition of the FOIA. However, the term is interpreted broadly and includes all information that applies to a particular individual. Because the email text at issue applies directly to Dr. Scher, it satisfies the threshold requirement. You further state that even if Exemption 6 applies, the redacted language is not personal privacy information about Dr. Scher and, consequently, he has no privacy interest in its content.

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.

You stated that you 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.

You assert that the public has a right to know why Provenge was not approved. This argument is not relevant to this FOIA request because the requested material does not shed light on the reason(s) why FDA did not approve the drug. NIH did release those portions of the email that did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy even where the information did not shed light on the FDA process or any other government operation.

My review indicates that NIH properly withheld the personal comments unrelated to government operations under Exemption (b)(6) of the FOIA. Exemption (b)(6) permits the withholding of privacy information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

This letter constitutes the final decision of the Department in this matter. If you wish, you may seek judicial review in the district court of the United States in the district in which you reside, or your principal place of business, or in which the agency records are located, or the District of Columbia.

Sincerely,

William H. Hall

Director, News Division

Office of the Assistant Secretary

for Public Affairs

In conclusion, CareToLive is currently considering District Court action to compel disclosure. CTL believes this decision is completely contrary to the law as stated in the Freedom of Information Act and is currently exploring the opportunity to commence District Court action against the Department of Health & Human Services.

Popularity: 12%