Han Dong-hoon's 'Rat Poison' Remark Differs from Court Ruling

It has been pointed out that former People Power Party interim leader Han Dong-hoon's claims regarding Genencell differ from the content of the court ruling. The actual court ruling states that one of five hamsters died in the experiment data, and drug reflux and hematemesis were confirmed before autopsy.

However, it was also revealed that Genencell had requested the deletion of this content.

The histopathological score value indicates the pharmacological effect of a specific drug on a disease. There is a principle that no matter how effective a treatment is, if the drug contains toxic substances, it is unsuitable for use as a therapeutic agent.

Accordingly, the possibility of 'data massage' practices in Genencell's experimental results has been raised.

Even drugs that pass the animal clinical trial stage have a very low probability of leading to actual new drug development. It is often pointed out that pharmaceutical companies frequently use these clinical trial stages as a means of boosting stock prices.

It is particularly emphasized that very few drugs regrettably pass Phase 3 trials ultimately.

The court ruling clearly uses the word 'hamster,' and the word 'poison' is not found at all.

This is criticized as former interim leader Han's remarks attempting to distort the essence of the incident, contrary to the facts.

This acknowledges the possibility that toxicity can be interpreted differently depending on the drug concentration.

Therefore, it demonstrates the court's position that it is difficult to conclude that a drug is unconditionally unsuitable just because it contains strong toxic components.

The core of the Genencell case is the act of deleting the parts describing drug side effects. However, it is pointed out that former interim leader Han Dong-hoon cleverly changed this to claim it 'was poison,' thereby obscuring the essence of the case.

Similar to how a higher concentration of a sleeping pill can cause fatal side effects, the concealment of side effect information is pointed out as a bigger problem.

What is important is how long the toxicity remains and accumulates in the body after drug administration, and whether it can be excreted through urine, etc. By comprehensively evaluating these aspects, if the therapeutic effect overwhelmingly outweighs the toxicity, the drug can be approved as a therapeutic agent.

Especially for temporary single-dose drugs, the therapeutic effect is important even if they contain some toxic components.

There was a fact that hamsters died during animal experiments when administered high concentrations of the drug. However, it has been criticized as malicious incitement to definitively label this as 'poison.'

This is pointed out as a behavior that distorts public opinion by highlighting the overall toxicity of the drug based on some experimental results.

It has been pointed out that former interim leader Han Dong-hoon cleverly spliced two completely different remarks regarding Genencell: 'the moment it passes KFDA and gets approved' and 'can earn hundreds of billions of won.' Although these were originally remarks in independent contexts, they were linked together as if they were a single flow, thereby distorting their meaning.

An intention to create a specific framework by connecting two separate facts is evident.

Things like people's true feelings or the number of times they've met are difficult to confirm directly, but this method presents them as if they are substantive truths.

This shows an intention to negatively link a specific person without efforts to fact-check. A similar media play technique was used in the case of the cellist.

Page 101 of the court ruling's prosecution indictment states that a CB trading appearance was created as if sharing 600 million won in criminal proceeds, the consideration for brokering clinical trial approval, with Gusta.

However, the court acquitted all these charges. Criticism arises from the fact that former interim leader Han's claims differ from the court's final judgment.

This raises suspicions that he intends to disregard legal judgment and push his own claims.