What’s the truth about the Ophthalmology-Oriented Surgery-Oral Surgery-Clinical Trials (COTS) program?
A series of lawsuits by some ophthalmologists and surgeons challenging the clinical trials of COTS has pushed the field into uncharted waters.
Here are the key points: A few months ago, Dr. Eric Guller, MD, was the medical director of the University of Minnesota Medical School, which runs the University Clinic.
Dr. Gullers lawsuit alleges the clinical trial program was designed by and for private investors who have a vested interest in the outcome of the trials.
It was meant to be a “public trust,” and it was intended to be funded by private investors, Drs.
Gulla and Gullert wrote in the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs say the clinical program was meant for private and nonprofit institutions and that the funding sources were never disclosed to patients.
The lawsuits filed in May by the plaintiffs and several of Dr. Gollers medical students allege that the clinical study program, known as the Clinical Trials Network, or CNT, is a secret government program that has been used to pay out tens of millions of dollars to private investors to fund the clinical studies.
On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it was reviewing the lawsuits and would decide whether to approve the clinical research in the coming months.
The clinical trial is meant to assess the efficacy of a drug, vaccine, or procedure and is expected to be completed by 2019.
The program has been criticized by many in the medical profession, who say it is a sham.
“This is a scam,” said Dr. John Gail, MD , director of ophthalmic and ophthalmosurgical surgery at Duke University Medical Center, which is also suing the federal government over the clinical test program.
“The people who are running this are not doctors and they’re not doctors who care about patients.
They are the same people who funded the drug trials of GW Pharmaceuticals that they funded with their money.”
Guller’s lawsuit also says that the government is trying to hide the money it paid for the clinical testing by saying that it is for “research and development” purposes.
“If you want to know who the investors are, the only way you know is to ask them,” said Gullett, who is also a co-director of the Duke University Center for Drug Discovery and Engineering.
“So, I’m sure they have some other names.
And they’ll tell you that the CNT is an independent, private, nonprofit entity.
But when you go to a website like this, they won’t tell you the real reason why they are spending money on this.
The real reason is to make sure that these private investors get a guaranteed return on their money and that they don’t have to worry about what the outcome is.”
In addition to the lawsuits, there are also questions about how much money the clinical-trial program has received and how many patients have been treated with the drug.
A review of data from GW Pharmaceutical and the Cnt has shown that there have been more than 7,500 patients enrolled in the clinical tests since January of this year.
However, Gullergs lawsuit, filed by the National Institute of Health, claims the COTS program has only been used in five states, and only for four patients.
The researchers say that there has been a failure to follow up on the patients who have completed the COTs.
What is COTS?
COTS is a program of research, clinical trials, and medical education designed to test a new or novel drug, vaccination, or surgery in humans.
Since the 1980s, a number of medical journals have written articles on the trials and how they have been used.
There are also many published scientific papers and peer-reviewed journals that discuss the clinical applications of the Cots program.
CNTs have been funded by the government since 1993.
More than $60 million has been spent on clinical trials with more than 1,400 participants, according to the National Institutes of Health.
Gollert and his fellow plaintiffs, including Dr. Robert Gulla, MD and Dr. James Gullervy, MD at Duke, say that in addition to being a sham, the clinical experiments have been compromised by the fact that the federal funding for clinical trials was never disclosed.
But Dr. J. Thomas Pugh, director of research for the American Academy of Ophthalmologic Surgeons, says the clinical practice of ocular surgery is fundamentally different from other areas of medicine.
“When you’re doing something that requires you to wear an instrument, the instruments have to be calibrated and tested, and you have to make a decision to use it,” Pugh said.
“You can’t just make the choice of doing what the manufacturer wants.”
According to Pugh and