Dear Dr Newbower,

I'm sorry to bother you again but, having now closely studied the comments from Drs Rosenbaum & Fava, I have reconsidered the preliminary view I expressed when I wrote to you on 17 December. I wrote then to say that, on a quick reading, I did not think that my concerns warranted action under MGH Codes. You then suggested that I should write directly to Drs M&G if I wanted to pursue issues which came "into the realm of scientific or medical discourse".

It now seems to me that some of the issues raised in the attached letter fall between these two stools - but assuming that the MGH Code on Scientific Integrity would cover not only "practices that seriously deviate from those commonly accepted within the scientific community", but also those which represent significantly less than a diligent search for truth, and which clearly deviate from standards good scientists should observe, in particular when the failure to do so presents a hazard to public health.

I believe this may be such a case, for the reasons set out in the attached letter, though the situation is certainly complicated by the involvement of several other authors, as well as the Eli Lilly Corporation. Nevertheless, given the extent of their involvement, as outlined in their comments, I am sure Drs Rosenbaum and Fava would wish to address the further points I raise.

I would be grateful if you could forward the attached letter to them to invite their comments, advising me in due course if your Office might feel able to register this as a formal compaint.