Here, the institution has approved a couple Alzheimers drugs and an ALS drug that do nothing-- overcome by both things mentioned above that should not have the power to approve a drug -- "greed from the drug manufacturer and wishful thinking from the afflicted" -- indeed, the exact purpose of drug regulators is to safeguard is from those things.

So: there's a purpose in complaining about it and hoping that regulator and regulation can be improved.

What percent of FDA scientists and committee members who are in charge of approving drugs have been part of the “revolving door?” And how do we know this is inherently bad? It may be, but I can also see how niche expertise would cause you to float between entities as appropriate.

Keep in mind 90% of drugs fail clinical trials. The situation cannot be THAT bad.