I already explained it in my posts back at the time the letter was written. Essentially, as a retired health care lawyer with over 30 years experience, I was able to "read between the lines" as it were to ascertain that things were really much worse than the letter suggests. A few examples: highly unusual to "pause" a rollout of a new drug if everything is fine. Waiting to "tabulate results" is a make weight excuse since serious adverse incidents are kept in real time. No new patients to get O is a red flag. Doctors whose patients are tolerating O well may continue to prescribe O if they wish suggests to me that they are really saying don't use O. It is just a matter of experience. The letter was like cloaking an iron fist in a velvet glove.
Did you happen to notice this part?
"For patients on OMONTYS®, we recommend continued use of the agent as it has been providing effective anemia management."
That must be the loudest condemnation of a med you've ever read between the lines of.
Could it be that FMS halted new patients because they needed to evaluate whether or not it was their employees causing fatalities?