which reflect the FDA’s position that Plaintiffs inadequate warning claims are preempted: (1) the May 10, 2006 amicus brief filed in this case representing that the FDA would consider such a warning false and misleading (as well as two prior amicus briefs filed in other cases by the FDA in 2005 and 2002, respectively, indicating the same), (2) the 2006 Preemption Preamble, an official agency statement purporting to establish preemption of conflicting state law claims. The FDA’s view is critical to this Court’s analysis because Supreme Court precedent dictates that an agency’s interpretation of the statute and regulations it administers is entitled to deference. Chevron U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) (<HOLDING>). See also Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp. v.
holding that guidelines should be accorded the same weight as each other factor listed in  3553a holding that in the absence of a statutory definition a term should be accorded its ordinary meaning holding that it has been long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive departments construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer holding that it is not recognizing rule of statutory construction that statutes must be read as a whole and sections which are part of the same general statutory scheme must be construed together and each given effect if it can be done by any reasonable construction