Changes

'''Stem cell decisions''' include this growing list:

'''Stem cell decisions''' include this growing list:

*''United States v. Cal. Stem Cell Treatment Ctr.'', No. EDCV 18-1005 JGB (KKx), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156714 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2022) (ruling against the FDA in its attempt to stop [[stem cell]] treatments at a clinic in [[California]]) - heavily relied upon by the government.

*''United States v. Cal. Stem Cell Treatment Ctr.'', No. EDCV 18-1005 JGB (KKx), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156714 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2022) (ruling against the FDA in its attempt to stop [[stem cell]] treatments at a clinic in [[California]]).

*''United States v. An Article of Drug . . . Bacto-Unidisk'', 394 U.S. 784, 793, 798 (1969) (“the word ‘drug’ [in the FDCA] “is a term of art for the purposes of the Act” and is broader than “the strict medical definition of that word”; “Congress fully intended that the Act’s coverage be as broad as its literal language indicates.”)

*''United States v. An Article of Drug . . . Bacto-Unidisk'', 394 U.S. 784, 793, 798 (1969) (“the word ‘drug’ [in the FDCA] “is a term of art for the purposes of the Act” and is broader than “the strict medical definition of that word”; “Congress fully intended that the Act’s coverage be as broad as its literal language indicates.”)

*''United States v. Kaplan'', 836 F.3d 1199, 1208-11 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The FDCA is to be interpreted broadly in order to protect public health.”; the Ninth Circuit ruled that a drug is “held for sale” not only when possessed by retailers and wholesalers and retailers, but also when possessed by healthcare professionals for their use in their practice)

*''United States v. Kaplan'', 836 F.3d 1199, 1208-11 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The FDCA is to be interpreted broadly in order to protect public health.”; the Ninth Circuit ruled that a drug is “held for sale” not only when possessed by retailers and wholesalers and retailers, but also when possessed by healthcare professionals for their use in their practice)