Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could not limit pharmacists' right to provide information about prescription drug prices. [1] This was an important case in determining the application of the First Amendment to ...
Many major trials of the drug ivermectin that claimed it could prevent COVID-19 were found to show signs of fraud and had "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study," according to one of the groups investigating the studies. [77] For example, some studies were found to list patients who had never ...
In a 3-0 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, cleared the way for the nation's largest pharmacy chain to face claims it violated the federal False Claims Act and ...
Virginia v. Cherrix is a 2006 court case in which the Commonwealth of Virginia sued to force Starchild Abraham ("Wolf") Cherrix (born June 1990), aged 16 at the time of the court case, to undergo further conventional medical treatment for a highly treatable form of cancer, Hodgkin disease .
A 2003 study by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences found that 70% of articles in a random sample of publications about least-developed countries did not include a local research co-author. [ 37 ] Frequently, during this kind of research, the local colleagues might be used to provide logistics support as fixers but are not engaged for their ...
The study was trying to induce stuttering in healthy children. The experiment became national news in the San Jose Mercury News in 2001, and a book was written. On 17 August 2007, six of the orphan children were awarded $925,000 by the State of Iowa for lifelong psychological and emotional scars caused by six months of torment during the Iowa ...
A Virginia woman who admitted to leading a scheme meant to defraud the government out of over $1.5 million in coronavirus unemployment benefits has been sentenced to a decade behind bars.
[4] [5] The term "official act" does not occur in the statutes charged in the case; rather, the parties to the trial had agreed that they would use the definition of that term given in the federal bribery statute 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3) in interpreting those statutes. Thus, by construing the term narrowly the Supreme Court narrowed the ...