Search for: "Wyeth Pharmaceuticals" Results 181 - 200 of 976
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am by Schachtman
Sander Greenland and others have raised various theoretical objections to the argument that relative risks should exceed two before attribution can be made in specific cases. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 12:44 pm by Tejinder Singh
Justice Thomas’s concurrence continues a theme that he first voiced in Wyeth v. [read post]
20 May 2013, 7:03 am
We wrote about the unethical use of fake Neurontin trials a couple of years ago in our blog, “The Difference Between Pharmaceutical Research and Marketing Blurs Yet Again. [read post]
22 Apr 2013, 2:43 pm by Fraud Fighters
The two whistleblowers in this case were former Wyeth salespeople. 5. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 6:51 am by Bexis
Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, 385 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2004)), and the plaintiffs played the same non-severability card. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 1:01 pm by Bexis
Wyeth, Inc., 2012 WL 79670, at *7 (W.D.N.C. [read post]
2 Apr 2013, 10:33 am by Anubha Sinha
Wyeth Ltd. to consider as to what amounts to ‘prior publication’ under the Design Act, 2000 in this post. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 3:04 pm by Bexis
We were planning to write about the Bartlettoral argument today (we still might) when we learned about Howard v. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 6:01 am by Joe Consumer
  In Wyeth v Levine, the Court pointed out that “Congress did not intend FDA oversight to be the exclusive means of ensuring drug safety and effectiveness’ and that state law serves as a ‘complementary form of drug regulation. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 1:17 pm by Bexis
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, 797 F. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 2:30 pm by Bexis
We’ve been pondering what to do with the latest 70+ page whopper from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for a couple of weeks. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 12:47 pm by Bexis
It’s written somewhat strangely – weak at the beginning, strong at the end – but the Department of Justice’s amicus curiae brief , filed yesterday in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. [read post]