Remove 2001 Remove Drugs Remove Regulations Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Let's Quit Sugar With Audiobook – Let's Quit Sugar

The Pharma Data

Testimonials are not necessarily representative of all of those who will use our products. Some of our testimonials are provided by customers who have received promotional offers in exchange for their participation. The testimonials displayed are given verbatim except for correction of grammatical or typing errors. Pediatr Ann.

Disease 52
article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

Drug manufacturers often could trade a little less efficacy for a little more safety, but the safest design is not always the best one. to determine whether a proposed alternative drug would have received FDA approval.” For physicians to prescribe such a safer drug, it must reach the market. Wyeth LLC , 562 U.S. 2d 506 (N.Y.

FDA 59
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Stupid Expert Tricks Redux

Drug & Device Law

2001) (Kilburn); and Wade-Greaux v. While cosmetic talc is not a drug or medical device, the FDA also regulates it (the “C” in the FDCA). Moline has given testimony in many other cosmetic talc cases” while keeping the (at least potentially) false premise of her article secret supported disclosure of the contrary evidence.

article thumbnail

Another Reason Why The FDA, Not Litigants, Approves Products

Drug & Device Law

Considering the rigorousness of this process and the due process interests of drug sponsors, Congress also mandated by statute a process for withdrawal or suspension of an FDA approval decision − a process the Fifth Circuit circumvented. 19, 2021) (admitting and excluding Studnicki testimony); Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Guest Post – Defendant Pitches A Shut Out And Hits A Home Run In Securing Summary Judgment In A Fosamax Case

Drug & Device Law

The court exercised its “gatekeeping” function under Rule 702 to assess whether the methodology underlying Plaintiff’s proffered expert testimony was “scientifically valid” and whether it could “be [properly] applied to the facts in issue.” Nor could Plaintiff fill that void by relying on expert testimony from other cases.