---

WASHINGTON (AP) — Researchers say the U.S. approved more new medicines in less time than Europe and Canada in the last decade, challenging long-standing criticisms that the Food and Drug Administration lags behind its peers in clearing important new drugs.

Between 2001 and 2010, the FDA's typical review of a new drug was about 15 percent faster than those by the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada, its counterparts abroad, according to a study published Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine. The analysis by researchers at Yale and the Mayo Clinic is the first to compare the FDA's recent drug review performance to similar agencies around the world.

Criticism that the FDA is too slow on drug approvals is a perennial theme for the pharmaceutical industry, which spends more than $50 billion annually to develop new drugs. The complaint has resurfaced in the past year as the industry renegotiates the fees it must pay the FDA to review new drug applications — a program which is reauthorized by Congress every five years.

The study authors address this issue directly, defending the agency's performance.

"Our findings contradict recent criticisms of the speed of review by the FDA and lead to questions about whether the speed of the review process is justified as an emphasis ... particularly since the FDA continues to outpace its European and Canadian peers," the authors state.

The median time for drug reviews by the FDA was 322 days, or about 10 and a half months. That was 45 to 70 days ahead of Europe and Canada, which typically completed their drug reviews after 12 and 13 months, respectively. Over the same 10-year time frame, the FDA reviewed 225 drug applications, 40 more than Europe and nearly 125 more than Canada.

The researchers also found that most new drugs are approved in the U.S. before the two other regions. Among drugs approved in both the U.S. and Europe, 64 percent were first approved by the FDA. For drugs approved in both the U.S. and Canada, 86 percent were first approved by the FDA.

"This allows us to focus on the important question of whether there are real barriers to drug innovation in the U.S.," said Kathleen Stratton of the Pew Charitable Trusts, which provided funding for the research. "But it's clear from this study that the speed at which the FDA reviews drug applications is not one of them."

Pew has lobbied for increased FDA funding to assure the safety of food, drugs and other regulated products.

The study authors acknowledge some limitations with the data. For example, they did not account for drugs which are ultimately rejected. FDA and other agencies don't release review times for drugs that are never approved. However, since the FDA approves 80 percent of all the applications it receives, the authors say it's unlikely the missing data would have changed their findings. The study was also limited to novel drugs, which means copycat drugs and reformulations of older products were excluded.

---

---

The most frequently listed employers of Paul's donors also looked very different. The top five organizations contributing to Paul's campaign (meaning their employees contributed and/or their PACs did) were the U.S. Army, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, Google and the Department of Defense. Paul always had strong support from members of the military, largely because of his anti-war stance, and even though Obama picked up some momentum recently with that demographic, Paul continued to be hands-down the top choice among Republican candidates.

In stark contrast, the top organizations giving to Romney are Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. Obama's top five list includes Microsoft Corp., DLA Piper, University of California, Sidley Austin LLP and Google.

Paul's campaign also relied very little on what has become standard operating procedure for Republican primary candidates: Let a heavy-hitting super PAC, funded by a handful of wealthy individuals, spend big on ads attacking your rivals.

A few outside spending groups supported Paul, but the largest, a super PAC called Endorse Liberty, spent just $3.8 million. All of that went to support Paul, not to attack other candidates. In contrast, Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney super PAC, has spent $46.5 million (more than Paul's campaign and all pro-Paul outside spending put together) -- $39.7 million of that on attacks against other candidates.

---

---

The Rules are the the Rules?

The rules are the rules - unless you're a long-time incumbent chairman suddenly finding yourself in a really competitive race.

Becky Stoeckel - the absentee Chairman of the 11th Congressional District - is treating you, a delegate to Saturday's 11th District Convention, as if you were a piece of furniture, to be moved around at her pleasure.

Nancy Pelosi famously said about "Obamacare" that it would have to pass first for everyone to find out what is in it.

Now the 12 year place-holding Chairman of the 11th Congressional District is telling you, a delegate to the convention that is just a few days away that you'll have to come to the convention to find out how many votes are necessary to win the race.

There was a major rule change this week for the convention Saturday; and even though I'm a candidate for Chairman there has been no official notification about the changes issued to the candidates.

The winner now only needs to receive a plurality vote; a majority is no longer needed in the race for Chairman. This overturns decades of precedent in the 11th, and it overturns the Convention Call voted on and published by the District Committee in February!

These long-time establishment "leaders" always want to make the rules work for them. (This is why so many people hate politics and all the "inside" games played to keep the same people in office, election after election.)

This is a classic case of a last minute change to the original rules known for months and approved by the 11th District Committee. Now, of course, even in a three-person race, Chairman Stoeckel finds herself in a bad spot. So she does what any desperate office holder does - she changes the rules in the hope that she can squeak out a win.

Election four days out? No problem. The next thing you know her handpicked "Rules Committee" has changed the rules everyone understood when they entered the race, and under which the candidates have been running their campaigns.

This kind of back-room last minute rule change cheapens the Republican brand at a time when we need to win over every possible voter in the 11th District.

---

---

Brewer also rejected another measure which making it a crime for any state employee -- including police officers -- to enforce or attempt to enforce two sections of a controversial new federal law which allow the government to detain people suspected of involvement in terrorism without trial, including U.S. citizens.

"While I unequivocally support the due process rights of all United States citizens, I cannot support legislation that forces law enforcement -- under threat of criminal penalty -- to choose between upholding the Constitution and laws of the United States and abiding by the laws of Arizona," Brewer wrote.

---

---

The governor vetoed legislation to demand title to most federal lands in the state. While describing herself as a "staunch advocate" for state sovereignty, "we still must be mindful and respectful of our federal system."

---