Reagan-era budgets proved so crippling for the FDA that the need for new personnel grew urgent
FDA neoliberal deregulation (and privitisation) and less funding, neoliberal government didn't care enough about public health, FDA revolving door with pharmaceutical companies
these changes tend to be less severe if the initial investigator who approved the drug enjoyed long tenure at the FDA.
The FDA's revolving door policy, where officials move from the agency to industry jobs, has created conflicts of interest. A study found that 11 of 16 FDA medical examiners who worked on 28 drug approvals and then left the agency for new jobs are now employed by or consult for the companies they recently regulated.
allowing the pharmaceutical industry to wield significant control over political decisions that affect them.
failure to require Purdue to demonstrate the efficacy of opioids in treating chronic pain. The agency presumed that the drug was safe and effective based on prior approvals of oxycodone formulations, and the only question was whether the slow-release technology presented a competitive advantage over other similar drugs. The FDA's decision to approve OxyContin has been criticized for its lack of rigor and its failure to consider the long-term risks of opioid use.
The FDA approved the slow-release technology based on this lone citation, which then provided the basis for Purdue's marketing claim that OxyContin presented less of a risk of cultivating opioid dependence.
n the 1950s, the FDA partnered with the pharmaceutical industry, and drug makers benefited from the agency's regime of pre-market approval, which enhanced the prestige of their products. However, the industry also began to criticize the FDA for impinging on individual prerogatives and for being overly bureaucratic. In the 1960s, the Kefauver-Harris Amendments required drug manufacturers to satisfy a more stringent criterion of drug efficacy, leading to complaints from corporate executives about onerous bureaucratic procedures. The deregulation of the FDA gained momentum in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan, who pursued a systematic approach to deregulation, including editorializing against the agency's authority and depriving it of funds. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992, supported by President George H.W. Bush and Senator Orrin Hatch, allowed the pharmaceutical industry to pay fees for new drug applications, which went towards hiring new medical examiners and expediting the review process. This act was presented as a way to supply the beleaguered agency with new funds, but it also raised concerns about the industry's influence over the FDA. Under President Bill Clinton, the FDA continued to regard the pharmaceutical industry as "partners, not adversaries," leading to concerns about overprescribing and oversupply. The User Fee Act was initially seen as a success, but it eventually led to the approval of dangerous drugs, highlighting the dangers of the FDA's close relationship with the industry.
FDA close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry
Neoliberalism, a conservative philosophy of governance, promoted deregulation and privatization, which enabled the pharmaceutical industry to expand its reach and influence. The FDA and other government agencies failed to regulate the industry effectively, allowing companies like Purdue Pharma to push their products aggressively and ignoring reports of abuse.
Arthur Sackler became a publisher, starting a biweekly newspaper, the Medical Tribune, which eventually reached six hundred thousand physicians. He scoffed at suggestions that there was a conflict of interest between his roles as the head of a pharmaceutical-advertising company and the publisher of a periodical for doctors
rug, hiring Rudolph Giuliani and Bernard Kerik to preempt any government crackdown
The drug's success can be attributed partly to the fact that many doctors wanted to believe in the therapeutic benefits of opioids.
doctors and learned that the "biggest negative" that might prevent widespread use of the drug was ingrained concern regarding the "abuse potential" of opioids. However, some physicians began arguing that American medicine should reexamine this bias,
we leave it up to each image maintainer to make the appropriate judgement on what's going to be the best representation / most supported solution for the upstream project they're representing
less secure sign-in technology
What does that mean exactly?
All of a sudden my Rails app's attempts to send via SMTP started getting rejected until I enabled "Less secure app access". It would be nice if I knew what was necessary to make the access considered "secure".
Update: Newer information added to this article (as well as elsewhere) leads me to believe that it is specifically sending password directly as authentication mechanism which was/is no longer permitted.
This is the note that has since been added on this page, which clarifies this point:
To help keep your account secure, from May 30, 2022, ​​Google no longer supports the use of third-party apps or devices which ask you to sign in to your Google Account using only your username and password.
To help keep your account secure, from May 30, 2022, ​​Google no longer supports the use of third-party apps or devices which ask you to sign in to your Google Account using only your username and password.
To keep your account more secure, Gmail no longer supports third-party apps or devices which require you to share your Google username and password. Sharing your account credentials with third-parties makes it easier for hackers to gain access to your account.
Hi L0ki,as we depend on retailers with affiliate programs to run the site without ads, and Amazon being one of them, yes, we are following their rules so we can use API and their affiliate program.As Tomas said, we are also trying to get the history back, though we noticed we aren't the only site being affected by this.As for ignoring their API and doing it the hard way - that could be possible I guess but really not preferable.And we also understand anybody not wanting to buy from Amazon anymore (as some already told us), but to be fair, if the game is available anywhere else (and I have yet to randomly find a game which is available only at Amazon), you can always check the game info on ITAD to compare the price to other retailers.
If it's not, it should be illegal for them to forbid you from showing price history. This is restricting access to information, and it's probably supposed to benefit them from shady sales (increasing the base price just before a sale, so that the "X % off" is higher).
"We are not allowed to show you Amazon history"? What prompted this? Fill me in if I missed something :).EDIT: Camelcamelcamel can still show Amazon price history, so a bit befuddled here.
I would be interested to know what the legality of this is either way. I mean, do they really have any legal right to compel you not to list their price history? However, just knowing that Amazon doesn't want you to do this will make me less likely to purchase from them in the future. Anti-consumer behavior pisses me off. Edit: If this is related to API access couldn't you just manually scrape prices off the site instead and hammer their server? Or is this more related to not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you so to speak related to the funding you can get through referral links?
considering this is just going to the alpha branch I'm going to go ahead with the merge
If we've gone more than a year without this being a problem in the slightest, I don't see how the next year would be any different.
Please don't put "feature request" items into GitHub Issues. If there's a new feature that you want to see added to Ruby on Rails, you'll need to write the code yourself - or convince someone else to partner with you to write the code. Later in this guide, you'll find detailed instructions for proposing a patch to Ruby on Rails. If you enter a wish list item in GitHub Issues with no code, you can expect it to be marked "invalid" as soon as it's reviewed.
When chat is available, customers can reach out using the channel that works best for them.
Contact support
To exercise the right of withdrawal, you must inform us (LEFAS Fashion GmbH, Heckmannufer 3, 10997 Berlin, Germany, hello@wayks.com) of your decision to withdraw from this contract by an unequivocal statement (e.g. a letter sent by post or e-mail). You may use the attached model withdrawal form, but it is not obligatory.
To meet the withdrawal deadline, it is sufficient for you to send your communication concerning your exercise of the right of withdrawal before the withdrawal period has expired.
Please send the completed form via postal service or attached to an email to:
you are allowed to comment on a specific point, giving you the chance to be more critical on a specific point instead of being critical on the overall of the reading.
Their hope by announcing so loudly what they have accomplished, is that others in the Android modder/hacker scene will step up and help them turn this root exploit into something useful for users by deploying features that are not currently available through the Google controlled Chromecast experience.