>>>Not can be moved by politics...IS moved by politics.
>
>Doesn't that mean the same? Unless you are saying that politics drives the FDA, fullstop?
>

Can implies potential while "is" implies an absolute. The FDA is part of the executive branch of our gov't and as such - IS motivated to one degree or another - by politics. For example, the morning after pill - RU-486 - was delayed for political reasons.

>
So the FDA's blockage of using prostaglandins in pregnancy/childbirth for years after most first-world health systems adopted them, was actually a political matter?
>

Don't know... Note that I did not say that politics is the only factor. All I said was that politics in the workings of the FDA IS a factor. Having consulted at one of the US's larges pharmeceutical companies and having been deeploy involved in the FDA/Regulatory process, I know just how political the whole scheme is. I have no doubts that pure science comes into play - but again, politics does have its role.


>
Careful, there is somebody here called "JVP" who will discipline you if he feels you are making statements based on "anecdote" which he has redefined to mean "a superficial review" ... ;-)
>

Given that I have PRACTICAL experience with the FDA - that pretty much pops the balloon on your whole "anecedote" theory.

Cheers...