HH products high in “Toxins”

Beware toxins in products, study warns

Manufacturers group denies that people are at risk

By Frank Thomas THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Chances are, there’s a product in your house that could make you sick.    It could be an air freshener, dryer sheets or your shampoo.    Even “green” products might include toxic chemicals that aren’t listed on their labels, say researchers at the University of Washington and Battelle. A study published online yesterday in the journal    Environmental Impact Assessment Review says that 25 best-selling cleaning and personal-hygiene products emit an average of 17 chemicals each. Battelle scientists tested vapors emitted by the samples, which included hand sanitizers, deodorants and dish detergents.

The researchers found 133 individual chemicals. Of those, nearly 25 percent are classified as toxic or hazardous under at least one federal law, according to the study.    “These are chemicals that can damage the brain, the lungs, the central nervous system and cause cancer,” said Anne Steinemann, a   professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington and the study’s lead author.

“And some of these chemicals have no safe exposure level. This means that not even one molecule is risk-free.” Steinemann wouldn’t say which brands they tested but said about 37 percent of American households use a laundry detergent that was examined.    And more than one-third of the products give off at least one chemical that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says is a probable carcinogen and is dangerous in even the smallest amounts, Steinemann said. One such chemical is methylene chloride, a solvent the FDA banned from cosmetic and personal-care products in 1989. It turned up in baby shampoo, she said.

Even the 11 products that claim to be “green,” “organic,” “nontoxic” or “natural” on their labels emit toxic chemicals, she said.

Neither the Consumer Product Safety Commission nor the Food and Drug Administration, which regulate these products, requires that companies list all of a product’s ingredients, Steinemann said.

“What’s misleading is they typically list some of the chemicals but not all of the   chemicals,” she said. “They usually list the benign-sounding ones.”    She said she hopes the industry does a better job of labeling and that people use more simple products to clean their houses, such as vinegar and water.   *

Brian Sansoni, a spokesman for the American Cleaning Institute, said the research is a stretch.    “There’s an implication that all of these are unsafe, and that’s just not the case,”   he said. “These aren’t just casually formulated and thrown onto the shelves.”    Sansoni said the products are safe when used properly.

A representative from the Consumer Product Safety Commission said the organization hasn’t seen the study and could not comment.

The FDA said it could not respond to the study, but said manufacturers are responsible for making safe products.  (Please read this last comment as “You Are on Your Own”!)

fthomas@dispatch.com

TOM DODGE DISPATCH    Battelle scientist Martha McCauley shows how vapors are extracted from household products for chemical analysis.(*  I know how sated one can feel with all this, but this deeply affects us all.  I do not apologize for my repeated efforts to alert you.  On a prior post when I learned that my “Tide” which I used was one of the worst offenders with regard to toxins, I immediately sent for the Soap Nuts @ Green Virgin Products and have used them ever since.  They have proved to be wonderful, smell good, get stuff clean and because they are a natural product [growing on trees], not toxic in any way AND they relieved me from the need to have to use Downey as the Soap nuts really do leave the clothes soft and nice.. . .this decision has served me well aside from the peace of mind, I am saving money.

This is a difficult problem to deal with as we are not given all the facts in order to be informed enough to make good decisions.   I have not used regular deodorant in years.  Brush with baking soda.  If we can’t trust the “Green products” – don’t know what we are supposed to do.    But I know this – we must KEEP DEMANDING  that those put there to protect us (e.g. FDA, etc) MUST be required to start doing their job to do just that. We have to keep up the pressure, we are making progress in just this last year or two.    Thanks friends for indulging me.  Jan)

FDA – Flip a Coin!

(This article on “Popcorn Lung” was in @-212-10 Columbus Dispatch )

FDA to decide whether butter flavoring is safe for consumers

By Anietra Hamper
WBNS-10TV

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reviewing a food additive that critics say puts consumers at risk of developing a rare, irreversible lung condition that has been found in workers at popcorn factories.   Some medical researchers and product-liability attorneys have warned that consumers can develop bronchiolitis obliterans by inhaling diacetyl, a chemical long used to give microwave popcorn and other foods a buttery flavor.

.
“We’re looking at the available information we have on the potential for consumer exposure and how that relates to the available safety data,” said Dr. Mitchell A. Cheeseman, director of the FDA’s Office of Food Additive Safety.
“At this time,” he added, “we still consider diacetyl used as a flavoring agent to be safe for consumers.”

.
Diacetyl’s critics agree that the chemical poses no health threat when used as a flavoring agent, even in concentrations found at popcorn manufacturing plants. The danger, they say, lies in the vapors the chemical produces when it’s heated — a common occurrence during production.    Hundreds of popcorn workers have sued their employers and flavoring manufacturers after developing bronchiolitis obliterans, also known as “popcorn lung.” The litigation has resulted in numerous settlements and judgments totaling more than $100 million.

.
Many popcorn producers, including the ConAgra Foods plant in Marion, have abandoned diacetyl in favor of other flavorings, but, according to the national Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, some companies still use it.
The possibility of a threat to consumers didn’t arise until 2007, when bronchiolitis obliterans was diagnosed in Wayne Watson of Colorado.

.
Watson, then 52, had been eating two to three bags of microwave popcorn a day for 10 years. He particularly enjoyed inhaling the buttery steam pouring out of a just-opened package.    “When you open the microwave and take out the bag and pull the ends of the bag, you get that woof — that woof — and I would breathe it in because it smells good,” Watson told WBNSTV (Channel 10), which has been investigating diacetyl.   Watson sued, and two months ago, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, he reached a settlement with one defendant, a flavor developer. The terms were not disclosed.

.
A member of Watson’s legal team, Kenneth B. McClain, a Missouri-based lawyer who’s represented hundreds of workers in popcorn-lung cases, said he recently filed lawsuits on behalf of three other consumers.    The physician who made Watson’s diagnosis, Dr. Cecile Rose, head of occupational and environmental medicine at Denver’s National Jewish Health Center, is convinced that diacetyl poses a risk not just to popcorn workers, but also to consumers.

.
She has relayed her concerns to four federal agencies, including the FDA.

.
The FDA says the scientific team assigned to review diacetyl will consider Rose’s conclusions. The agency hasn’t indicated when it might issue its findings.

.
U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who recently urged the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety & Health Administration to assess the workplace risks associated with diacetyl, said he’ll be keeping a close eye on the FDA, too.    “We want to see the FDA either reassure us, without equivocation, or move forward on telling the public that this substance is questionable.”
anietra.hamper@10tv.com

FDA denies our rights

CSPI Asks FDA to Abolish Food and Supplement Health Claims

January 12, 2010

Only a drug company selling an FDA approved drug may make such a claim. Any violation of this rule can result in massive fines and a long jail sentence.

The producer of a Vitamin D supplement cannot legally cite the science showing that Vitamin D prevents and treats the flu. Flu is considered a disease so this is forbidden. The science doesn’t matter to the FDA. Nor does freedom of speech.

The supplement producer can make a Structure/Function Claim. For example, the bottle might say to take Vitamin D for immune system function.

Alternatively, the Vitamin D producer might ask the FDA for permission to make a Qualified Health Claim. For example, it might ask to be able to say that Vitamin D may prevent or treat the flu (note the qualifying term “may”).

But the FDA does not like Qualified Health Claims and will almost always deny them. It will typically say the science is not strong enough. To reach this conclusion, it will throw out most scientific studies because they have not been set up in the form of standard FDA drug trials.

The FDA seems to want, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest says it wants, the abolition of both Structure/Function Claims and Qualified Health Claims. They seem to want food, supplements, and drugs to be treated exactly alike. No health claims of any sort would be allowed unless the product was brought through the full FDA approval process.

At first glance, this might seem both fair and logical. Why not treat everything alike? Why not subject food, supplements, and drugs to the same standard?

But this is not at all fair or logical. It is actually both unfair and completely illogical. It omits an all important fact: the staggering cost of FDA approval: up to $1 billion for a single product.

Drug companies can afford to pay these horrendous sums. For one thing, they can charge as much as $100 a pill. And how can they get away with charging so much? Because drugs are usually patented.

The patent together with FDA approval creates a monopoly. This is a government sanctioned and enforced monopoly, and it makes drug companies the most profitable businesses in America.

Another important fact: natural substances cannot usually be patented (they were after all, designed and created by nature). At least the rules say that they cannot be. Does this mean that drug companies avoid natural substances? Of course not.

When drug companies find a natural substance that promises to prevent or treat disease, they seek to “twist” the molecules enough to claim that the resulting product is “new” and therefore patentable. Then they take the modified and no longer “natural” product to the FDA for approval.

The result? We now pay as much as  for that it as a drug than we would have paid for the natural product. Worse, the “new” drug may be much more dangerous than the natural product from which it was derived. (as it’s DNA has been altered)

FDA knew HFCS contained Mercury

Society ofENVIRONMENTAL JOURNALISTS

FDA Knew About Mercury in Corn Syrup — And Kept Silent

January 28, 2009

The Food and Drug Administration has known for years that high fructose corn syrup is often contaminated with toxic mercury — but did not inform or warn the public.

“There is no established safe dose for elemental mercury, the type discovered in corn syrup,” wrote Michael Hawthorne, who had the story in the Chicago Tribune of January 27, 2009. “But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says an average-sized woman should limit her exposure to 5.5 micrograms a day of methylmercury, the kind found in fish. If that same woman regularly ate corn syrup contaminated at the highest level detected in the study — 0.57 micrograms per gram — the researchers estimated that she could end up consuming an amount of mercury that is five times higher than the EPA’s safe dose.”

But the FDA had the information as early as 2005, when one of its scientists co-authored a study finding the mercury in corn syrup. Despite this, the FDA allowed the corn industry to go forward with a campaign advertising corn syrup as “natural.” That part of the story came out in the Huffington Post column of Leslie Hatfield Jan. 27.

The Corn Refiners Association is currently running a TV ad campaign attempting to deny negative statements about corn syrup.

• “Mercury in Corn Syrup?” Chicago Tribune, January 27, 2009, by Michael Hawthorne.
• “Our Melamine: There’s Mercury in High Fructose Corn Syrup, and the FDA Has Known for Years,” Huffington Post, January 27, 2009, by Leslie Hatfiel

FDA, dereliction continues

HEART DEVICES AND STENTS

Studies fault FDA approval process

By Carla K. Johnson
ASSOCIATED PRESS

CHICAGO — Two new studies find shortfalls in the Food and Drug Administration’s approval process for heart devices such as pacemakers and stents.    Safety targets often weren’t clearly spelled out in the research submitted by device-makers, and important patient information was missing, according to one study conducted by researchers from the FDA and Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
A separate analysis by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, found that heart devices frequently got the FDA’s blessing based on research involving small groups of patients outside the United States. Many studies of devices lacked such standards as randomization and a clear goal.
Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, the FDA’s acting device center director, said the agency is looking closely at its device program and making changes. It wants manufacturers to adhere to tougher research guidelines that will be out in 2010, Shuren said.
The FDA, chief watchdog on device safety, approves products ranging from wrinkle fillers to artificial knees. Heart devices fall into a category of high-risk devices that require the toughest review before they can be marketed. They include implantable defibrillators, valves and stents, which are tiny metal-mesh tubes used to prop open arteries.
The new studies cap a year of scrutiny and criticism for the FDA’s medical devices division. In August, the head of the division resigned, months after scientists under his leadership alleged that they had been pressured to approve certain products. The year began with congressional investigators saying the FDA should quickly make sure the riskiest devices are approved through the most stringent process. The new studies didn’t examine the safety of the devices, nor did they look for differences in the approval process for items that were later recalled.

Global sales of heart and blood-vessel devices were nearly $76.7 billion in 2008, according to market research firm BCC Research.
One of the new studies, published online yesterday in the American Journal of Therapeutics, found that about 40 percent of pivotal studies lacked precise targets for how safety would be measured. Studies also failed to fully account for what happened to all patients enrolled in the research and omitted important information on patients such as how many had heart disease or diabetes.
The second study was in today’s Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, examined summaries of research behind 78 heart and blood-vessel devices. It found many devices were approved based on small studies — 300 patients on average — and  two-thirds were approved based on just one study.
Both studies looked at devices approved from 2000 to 2007.

FDA can’t do it’s job!

GAO STUDY OF ‘ACCELERATED APPROVAL’

Ineffective drugs never pulled by FDA

By Matthew Perrone
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration has allowed drugs for cancer and other diseases to stay on the market even when follow-up studies showed they didn’t save lives, congressional investigators say.  The agency also has never pulled any drug off the market because of a lack of required follow-up about its actual benefits — even when such information is more than a decade overdue, according to a report due out today from the Government Accountability Office.  When pressed about that policy, agency officials said they have no plans to get more aggressive.

.
The GAO found that the FDA does little to track whether drugs approved based on preliminary results actually have lived up to their promise.  In 1992, the FDA began granting “accelerated approval” to novel drugs based on so-called surrogate endpoints, or laboratory measures that suggest the drug will make real improvements in patient health.  HIV drugs, for example, are cleared based on their virus-lowering power, a predictor of survival.   Drugmakers favor the program because it allows them to get products to market sooner, without conducting long-term patient studies that can take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

.
However, a condition of the quicker approvals requires drugmakers to conduct follow-up studies to show that the drug actually helped patients live longer.   But the GAO report identified several drugs still on the market that never lived up to their initial promise.

.
Further, in the 16 years that the FDA has used accelerated approval, it has not once pulled a drug off the market, even when companies went more than a decade without submitting follow-up data.  “The FDA has fallen far short of where it should be for patient safety,” said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who requested the report.

.
Of the 144 studies the FDA has required under the program since 1992, more than one-third are pending, the GAO said. Investigators said the FDA does not regularly check whether companies are making progress on their required studies, although the agency is improving its oversight. “According to FDA officials, this task was a lower priority,” the report says.
In the case of Shire Laboratories’ low blood-pressure treatment ProAmatine, the required study has gone incomplete for more than 13 years. The GAO found that ProAmatine has generated more than $257 million in sales, even though “the clinical benefit of the drug has never been established.”  Shire did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

.
In other cases, the FDA has failed to act even when company studies show that drugs did not improve patient outcomes. The FDA approved AstraZeneca’s Iressa in 2003 based on early results showing that it reduced the size of tumors. But later studies showed the drug did not help patients live longer. The FDA has left the drug on the market, despite side effects including hundreds of reports of a sometimes-fatal pneumonia.   AstraZeneca PLC said the drug is sold only through a limited-access program and “is not available to new patients.”

.
The GAO concluded that the FDA has no policy for withdrawing drugs approved using surrogate endpoints. The FDA reportedly told the GAO it would be “difficult, if not impossible,” to draft a standard policy for withdrawals because drugs vary case by case.

HPV, trouble in FDAville

American Association for Health Freedom

Protecting the right of the Consumer to choose,  and the Practioner to practice.       October 2009

Adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine (one death; one left brain damaged) spark demand for Inquiry!

The Alliance for Natural Health-UK has called for an urgent scientific inquiry into the HPV (human papilloma vaccine) being used in the United States. Pulse of Health Freedom recently wrote of the British teenager denied U.S. citizenship after she refused the Gardasil vaccine, which is required of all female immigrants applying for citizenship.

British health authorities are now investigating the death of a 14-year old British schoolgirl a few hours after she received Cervarix vaccine at her school. Just days after another 17-year-old British teen received the vaccine, she suffered seizures and damage to her left brain. As reported in the September 29, 2009 issue of this newsletter, the Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail revealed in August 2009 that 23 million doses of the HPV vaccine have been administered to young women in the United States, resulting in 32 deaths and 12,424 adverse reactions, including 772 severe reactions (blood clots, pancreatic failure, motor neuron disease and anaphylaxis).

ANH-UK points out that  “until the known risks are properly communicated to the public, informed choice does not exist. We call on recipients of this eBlast to communicate with your parliamentary representative, whether in the UK, other European countries, the US, Canada, Australia or elsewhere, and put pressure on your government to release all the known facts over the risk of this controversial vaccine or initiate a scientific inquiry.
According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, only 52 percent of Americans are willing to be given the H1N1 vaccine. It seems that people are getting the message that vaccines, while worthwhile, are neither 100 percent safe nor 100 percent effective. Consumers want to make important healthcare choices for themselves, rather than be coerced by government mandates.

As for the British teen, who lives with her grandmother in the United States and seeks U.S. citizenship, there is hope. According to vaccine lawyer Patricia Finn, there is a provision in immigration law that allows rejection of vaccination on all kinds of moral or religious grounds  Attorneys like Finn help to defend the rights of those who choose to opt out of vaccinations, such as Gardasil and its British version, Cervarix, with its imperfect record of safety.

October 2009

FDA vs the People

Who can stop these people?   These “natural,”  so- called  bioidentical thyroid products have been used for more than a century – successfully!   This is longer than the history of the FDA which, when it was formed, grandfathered in certain products which were successfully in use and obviously “safe.”   I am heartsick for the millions who depend on these products.  This is way too far!  Washington MUST step in and stop these strong-arm tactics.  FDA will not obey the law!

American Assoc. for Health Freedom

FDA Attacks Natural Thyroid Millions Rely On

We have learned that Time-Cap Labs, producer of a generic version of the brand name drug Armour, a natural and bioidentical thyroid replacement, has been ordered by the FDA to stop production. The FDA has decided to classify the company’s product, available for over a century, as an unapproved new drug.  Since the new drug approval process is prohibitively expensive for a non-patentable substance, the FDA is in effect banning the natural product.  The purpose?  Presumably to protect the profits of other, inferior drugs that have been FDA approved.

According to statistics by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and other medical organizations, approximately twenty-seven million Americans have a thyroid disorder.  Thyroid consumer advocate Mary Shomon projects that 2 million of these patients take either Armour Thyroid or a generic equivalent.

Armour and other “whole” natural thyroid preparations (including Westhroid and Nathroid as well as Time-Cap Lab’s Thyroid) are bio-identical, complete hormone preparations, containing “T4” “T3” “T2” and “T1” in the same proportions made by the human thyroid.

The FDA approved preparations Synthroid (T4), Cytomel (T3), and Levethyroxine (T4) include bio-identical molecules, but are not complete or totally bio-identical as they do not contain “T2” or “T1”.  It’s no wonder so many people feel much better with the balanced natural products that have been available for generations.

As famed physician Dr. Jonathan Wright observes:  “Natural thyroid has never killed or severely harmed anyone since its first use in the 1890s, prior to the FDA itself. It is a mainstay not only in the treatment of hypothyroidism but also in ‘healthy aging’ therapy. That the FDA should even be thinking of requiring a new drug approval for a safe, 100 plus year old natural treatment is outrageous.”

We will report further as soon as we confirm more of the facts, and as always, we’ll let you know how you can get involved.

September 1, 2009

Suing FDA (and winning)

There is a giant, a true champion in the legal field who fights for justice in the field of  alternative medicine and health freedom.  That would be Jonathan Emord who has sued the FDA over censorship. Be encouraged, for this is really important. For more about what he does on behalf of citizen’s rights, go to:   http://www.emord.com/media .

PRESS RELEASE: August 14, 2009

Emord Sues FDA: Antioxidant Vitamin Claim Suppression Violates First Amendment

Today Emord & Associates, P.C. filed a third suit in as many weeks against the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the FDA. The firm did so on behalf of the Alliance for Natural Health US; dietary supplement formulators Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw; and the Coalition to End FDA and FTC Censorship. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the Court to hold FDA’s June 19, 2009 decision censoring antioxidant vitamin/cancer risk reduction claims unconstitutional under the First Amendment and to enjoin FDA from preventing entry of the claims into the market.

In Whitaker v. Thompson I, 284 F.Supp.2d 1, 13 (D.D.C. 2002), U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler gave FDA the First Amendment standard it was to apply in health claim cases. FDA has not cited, let alone applied, that standard in the review of any health claims, including the antioxidant vitamin/cancer risk reduction claim. In its review of qualified health claims, FDA has often not permitted accurate representations of emerging science to reach the public. Instead, it has created a rigid construct that categorically rejects review of science that the scientific community considers persuasive, including animal studies, in vitro studies, and clinical trials (if they involve treatment of diseased populations or are deemed methodologically deficient for one reason or another). FDA thus does not in fact review the totality of scientific evidence but only a small fraction of it, erecting a straw man to either deny or saddle claims with misleadingly negative disclaimers.

Upon filing the suit, lead counsel Jonathan W. Emord stated, “This is the third time we have gone to Court against FDA for its suppression of an antioxidant vitamin/cancer risk reduction claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Pearson v. Shalala ordered FDA to allow the claim with reasonable disclaimers. FDA refused, and we sued the agency again. The U.S. District Court in Whitaker v. Thompson I ordered FDA to allow the claims a second time, condemning FDA’s refusal to abide by Pearson v. Shalala. We are now back a third time, demanding that FDA abide by the same constitutional law and precedent it has refused to accept for more than a decade. It is clear that FDA thinks itself unanswerable to the federal courts and above the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. We hope in this case the district court will make clear that FDA is neither.”

FDA has reinstated a regime of censorship, demanding near conclusive proof before it allows any nutrition science to enter the market. That move violates four First Amendment cases that have repeatedly demanded that FDA favor disclosure of nutrition science over its suppression as the operative rule. Rather than permit public access to accurate representations of science, FDA refuses to allow any science to reach the market unless it thinks scientific proof established to a near conclusive degree, an extremely rare happenstance.

Emord & Associates has defeated FDA in five prior First Amendment cases, including the landmark Pearson v. Shalala, 172 F.3d 72 (D.C.Cir. 1999). The firm has also filed, and obtained approval, for most of the qualified health claims now permitted by the agency.

PhRMA fakin’ it (again)

American Association for Health Freedoms

Protecting the right of the consumer to choose. . . . . . and the Practitioner to practice

The Light of Day Shines on the Practice of Ghostwriting Articles in Medical Journals

Ghostwriting, defined as the practice of using a professional writing company to draft a manuscript, entered the American lexicon when the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported on the actions of Sen. Charles Grassley to conduct a congressional investigation into drug companies’ influence on doctors.

Plaintiffs in 8,000 lawsuits involving the use of Prempro (the combination of Premarin and Progestin, which are synthetic hormones for hormone replacement therapy) sought to establish the link between the drug and breast cancer.  As a result, Wyeth was forced to turn over about 40 articles in medical journals and other publications alleged to have been ghostwritten. The articles had been designated confidential before the series of trials relating to Prempro began in 2006.

In these trials, the plaintiffs alleged that Wyeth, which conjured up the concept for the articles to counteract criticism of Prempro as well as to embellish its benefits, hired a professional writing company to draft the articles to convey Wyeth’s message about the drug. But Wyeth retained a doctor to sign off as the study’s author. The company then found publishers to print the articles (in some instances unwittingly). Wyeth sales representatives were given the articles to present to practicing physicians as independent proof that Prempro was safe and effective.  Sen. Grassley targeted Wyeth’s actions in the investigation.
The New York Times and PLoS  (a biomedical journal published by the Public Library of Science in Great Britain without ads from drug companies) filed a motion asking the judge in the Prempro lawsuits to set aside the confidential designation enjoyed by Wyeth on these documents.  On Friday, July 24, 2009, U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson ordered Wyeth’s papers unsealed.  While Wyeth attorney Stephen Urbanczyk acknowledged the articles are part of a marketing effort, he claiamed them to be fair, balanced and scientific. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Walker, retorted with a question:  “Why don’t they want to turn loose of them?  Becuase it makes them look bad.

There has been an ongoing effort to force drug companies to provide physicians and consumers all the data involving drugs in order that decisions can be made objectively about the use of certain pharmaceuticals. Until now, prescribing decisions have been made solely on the basis of marketing information that was bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical firm seeking to sell more of its medications.  AAHF  has closely followed the issue, writing about the FDA‘s seeming to do the bidding of Wyeth in its effort to prevent bio-identical hormones, produced by a competitor of Wyeth’s, from ever hitting the market

August 4, 2009