tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9551150.post317181091865236102..comments2024-03-17T05:36:26.059-04:00Comments on Health Care Renewal: SCHATZBERG DISCLOSURERoy M. Poses MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00497209843184497847noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9551150.post-54605387721183204322008-07-21T19:22:00.000-04:002008-07-21T19:22:00.000-04:00Kathy, you seem confused. Stanford said that Scha...Kathy, you seem confused. Stanford said that Schatzberg had revealed the full amount of his conflict with Corcept. Well, if that was the case, then why was Senator Grassley only provided with a disclosure of greater than $100,000?<BR/><BR/>Apparently, this "disclosure" of millions was not in Schatzberg's file.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9551150.post-54944260479155950422008-07-21T17:06:00.000-04:002008-07-21T17:06:00.000-04:00Thank you for your comment, Kathy. I will try to p...Thank you for your comment, Kathy. I will try to point out where the misunderstandings might arise.<BR/><BR/>Senator Grassley expressed concern that, even though Stanford was aware of Dr. Schatzberg's equity interest in Corcept Therapeutics, the University did not disclose the true value of this interest in its response to him. Sen. Grassley remarked on the disconnect between the disclosed Bernard Carrollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16203083806436919715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9551150.post-48530172266914695612008-07-21T15:04:00.000-04:002008-07-21T15:04:00.000-04:00I'll start by disclosing my conflicts -- I work at...I'll start by disclosing my conflicts -- I work at Stanford and am an alum. I have read this blog and the materials referenced, and am not able to follow some of the concerns. For example, the blog implies that Stanford used SEC filings to learn about conflict of interest and that this is "laughable". However, my reading of Stanford's action is that they commented on SEC filings, but did not Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14414989978028539575noreply@blogger.com