Thanks for that link. I just looked at the first few pages; that was enough for me. The repetition of statements that included the following phrases jumped out of the page.

…Defendants had not properly administered and monitored…

…in accordance with…

...Good Clinical Practice…

I was rather hoping that the characters you mentioned in your previous post might lend some credibility to the enterprise. Evidently, it’s a case of “same old, same old”.

At least, if this thing ever pops out of sheer, ignorant exhuberance, I’ll know what to do next time.