vol1 - Page 251

 Finallyt there is no evidence in the record, other than
 Green's assertions to suggest timolol was approved for any india
 cation other than the traditional indication: as an intraocular
 antihypertensiVeo There is no evidence in the record to suggest
 Merke, Sharp & Dome, the manufacturer of Timoptic, has ever
 claimed use of Timoptic results in a retention of visual
 field. _/ And the research on visual field retention which has
 emerged since Timoptic's approval is e_remely contradictoryo _5-/
 The AAO, in its #timely _ repc_rt_ _/ states na long
 term clinical study, designedto test the safety and efficacy of
 marijuana in the prevention of progressive optic nerve damage and
 ....... i
 consequent visual field loss_ appears appropriateo w_5X/ There is
 not indication in the record the AAO made similar demands prior
 to Timolol's NDA approval.
 .... >
 When, during cross-examination by Mro Zeese, Keith
 Green was asked why, nearly twenty years after Heplerts initial
 report of lOP reduction, such a study had not been undertaken,
 Dr. Green offered this revealing response:
 ___._/ ACT Rebuttal Exhibits_ B4® #Timoptic . . o has been shown
 to be effective in lowering intraocular pressure .... n
 ........... 55_/ Cross_examination of Dr. John Merritt, Tr. I0-187. See
 _19__ Affidavit of Dr. George Spaeth at p_ 7. Spaeth, in his
 direct testimony, reports on a single patient study which sug _
 gests timolol actually caused an erosion of visual function.
 ___._/ The Academy withheld its report which was concocted in
 ..... i_ 1984-85 until June 21, 1987. There is _o evidence to sugqest
 that prior to release and in the two years between the com-
 mitteeSs meeting and the Report's publication that the issue was
 discussed beyond the limited, confines of the AAO Ad Hoc
 Committee on Marijuana Leqislation.
 55// Affidavit of Robert Randall_ Exhibit 15B, Affidavit of Dr_
 Robert Helper, Exhibit 2_ p_ 4.
 o
 - -