Remove 2001 Remove Doctors Remove FDA Approval
article thumbnail

Marijuana: Top Ten Reasons for Descheduling, Rescheduling or Not

FDA Law Blog: Biosimilars

Not surprisingly, then-presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson, DEA Administrator from 2001 to 2003, did not sign the letter. The letter is signed by six former DEA administrators and five former Directors of National Drug Policy. The earliest tenured is John Bartels, who served as Administrator from 1973 to 1975.

article thumbnail

The Pursuit of Parenthood

Codon

The second federal restraint on reproductive technology is a 2015 ban on the FDA from considering any new drug applications involving the genetic modification of human embryos. Jiankui, a Chinese scientist who had done his doctoral and post-doctoral training in U.S. while it proceeds elsewhere. Since IVF in the U.S.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Another Reason Why The FDA, Not Litigants, Approves Products

Drug & Device Law

Congress created an FDA approval process that is both rigorous and thorough, and pharmaceutical companies invest billions of dollars in research and development to meet FDA’s scientific standards. Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics & Patterns of Holding & Using Hospital Privileges,” 6.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Life-Saving Drugs and Chicken Bones: California Court Expands Innovator Duties of Care

Drug & Device Law

The FDA approved the defendant’s first TDF drug in 2001, and the company started its first clinical trial on a different compound—tenofovir alafenamide (“TAF”)—about a year later. The court also assumed that physicians naturally would prescribe the “newer” TAF once the FDA approved it. at *48-*50. at *31, *32.

article thumbnail

Another Update on Medical Abortion Litigation

Drug & Device Law

In our line of work, much of what we do depends on the continuing validity of how the FDA regulates prescription medical products. 341 (2001), is so important. It prevents plaintiffs in prescription medical product liability litigation from making collateral attacks on in-force FDA decisions. That’s why Buckman Co.

article thumbnail

Another Update on Medical Abortion Litigation

Drug & Device Law

In our line of work, much of what we do depends on the continuing validity of what the FDA does with respect to prescription medical products. 341 (2001), is so important. It prevents plaintiffs in prescription medical product liability litigation from making collateral attacks on in-force FDA decisions.

FDA 52
article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

What’s worse, the fraud on the FDA claim, if brought under state law, would be preempted by Buckman Co. 341 (2001). Without any consideration of what actual doctors did for actual patients with actual diseases, all that was proven was the maxim “garbage in, garbage out.” Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S.