vol1 - Page 247

 Me_itt: =_, but not with :_00
 patients. _
 Earlier_ during cross-examination by _. Zeese_
 Dr. Merritt states:
 The Timolol studies were originally based on
 between 300 and 400 ocular hypeg_censives,
 _, ,_ oneseye trea_ent trials ..... None of
 those patients o . . were eve_ categorized as
 to open angle glaucomas or oo_lar
 hypertensives They just said, patients
 treated who all had high eye pressures had X
 numbe_ millimeters of lowering of pres-
 From the above dialogues it appears the vast majority
 of 300 or so persons tested on timolol did not have glaucoma, but
 ...._:. were normo-tensive (no ocular problem) ,Dr ocular hypertensives
 (elevated ocular tension)_ but no clinical diagnosis of glaucoma
 and no damaae to the optic disc or visual fiel_. It is also
 clear most of the timoiol evaluations were of an acute (short-
 term) nature° Several timolol tests i_olving an unknown nnmber
 of subjects ran three months and Green .insists there was at least
 one 6-month evaluation. These were out-patient evaluations
 (timolol subjects were not hospitalized to establish strict
 research controls). _/
 ::_,- 544/ Cross-examination of Dr. John Merritt_ Tr. 10-126 & 10-127o
 Note: Late Phase I and nearly all of the Phase II evaluations
 would involve normo-tensive [non-diseased] research subjects.
 _ 546/ Cross examination of Keith Greene Ph.D., Tr. 9-178.
 Robert Randall, a participant in the timolol Phase IXI trials
 received the drug on an out-patient basis for 3 weeks. Affidavit
 of Dr. Richard North, _ 32-43. When tested at UCLA for IOP
 response to marijuana therapy_ however, he was hospitalized for
 13 days of around the clock obseervation and evaluation.
 :.:. Affidavit of Robert Randall, _ 55.
 - 174 - ,,