I'd like to see the outline of what this article was supposed to get across because I can't understand it in this form.

I'm also with the FDA IF it is as it seems and not some bullshit power move to keep drugs people need away from them based on their profit margin, but I think most moves the FDA makes in this respect are to benefit it in the long run, so im.just curious what prompted this or how this even got on the FDA's radar.

It doesn't appear that there was an adverse reaction, this appears (from this article anyway) to be a proactive move "just in case." But is it really or is it based on some drug about to come onto the market? That would be more in line with their M.O. in most scenarios.

This article, like most news, as Haruki Murakami once said, "tells me everything except what I want to know."

I'd like to see the outline of what this article was supposed to get across because I can't understand it in this form.

I'm also with the FDA IF it is as it seems and not some bullshit power move to keep drugs people need away from them based on their profit margin, but I can't help but think most moves the FDA makes in this respect are to benefit it in the long run, so im.just curious what prompted this or how this even got on the FDA's radar.

It doesn't appear that there was an adverse reaction, this appears (from this article anyway) to be a proactive move "just in case." But is it really or is it based on some drug about to come onto the market? That would be more in line with their M.O. in most scenarios.

This article, like most news, as Haruki Murakami once said, "tells me everything except what I want to know."

I'd like to see the outline of what this article was supposed to get across because I can't understand it in this form. I'm also with the FDA IF it is as it seems and not some bullshit power move to keep drugs people need away from them based on their profit margin, but I can't help but think most moves the FDA makes in this respect are to benefit it in the long run, so im.just curious what prompted this or how this even got on the FDA's radar.

It doesn't appear that there was an adverse reaction, this appears (from this article anyway) to be a proactive move "just in case." But is it really or is it based on some drug about to come onto the market? That would be more in line with their M.O. in most scenarios.

This article, like most news, as Haruki Murakami once said, "tells me everything except what I want to know."

I'd like to see the outline of what this article was supposed to get across because I can't understand it in this form. I'm also with the FDA (IF it is as it seems and not some bullshit power move to keep drugs people need away from them based on their profit margin) but I can't help but think most moves the FDA makes in this respect are to benefit it in the long run, so im.just curious what prompted this or how this even got on the FDA's radar.

It doesn't appear that there was an adverse reaction, this appears (from this article anyway) to be a proactive move "just in case." But is it really or is it based on some drug about to come onto the market? That would be more in line with their M.O. in most scenarios.

This article, like most news, as Haruki Murakami once said, "tells me everything except what I want to know."

I'd like to see the outline of what this article was supposed to get across because I can't understand it in this form. I'm also with the FDA (IF it is as it seems and not some bullshit power move) but I can't help but think most moves the FDA makes in this respect are to benefit it in the long run, so im.just curious what prompted this or how this even got on the FDA's radar.

It doesn't appear that there was an adverse reaction, this appears (from this article anyway) to be a proactive move "just in case." But is it really or is it based on some drug about to come onto the market? That would be more in line with their M.O. in most scenarios.

This article, like most news, as Haruki Murakami once said, "tells me everything except what I want to know."

I'd like to see the outline of what this article was supposed to get across because I can't understand it in this form. I'm also with the FDA, but I can't help but think most moves the FDA makes in this respect are to benefit it in the long run, so im.just curious what prompted this or how this even got on the FDA's radar. It doesn't appear that there was an adverse reactions, this appears (from this article anyway) to be a proactive move "just in case." But is it really or is it based on some drug about to come on the market? That would be more in line with their M.O.