Isn't the FDA the same agency that authorized the use of Thalidomide for pregnant women, and then much later deauthorized it due to birth defects?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal#United_Sta...
>In the U.S., the FDA refused approval to market thalidomide, saying further studies were needed. This reduced the impact of thalidomide in U.S. patients. The refusal was largely due to pharmacologist Frances Oldham Kelsey who withstood pressure from the Richardson-Merrell Pharmaceuticals Co.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Change_in_drug_reg...
>In the United States, the new regulations strengthened the FDA, among other ways, by requiring applicants to prove efficacy and to disclose all side effects encountered in testing. The FDA subsequently initiated the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation to reclassify drugs already on the market.
There was a swift ban on Thalidomide and the FDA went to the extreme of removing fertile women from all trials for the next 60 years, leading to 2nd order effects like Ambien car crashes.
Notice how I didn't say "FDA bad", but just asked a question, which was effectively answered.
This sort of infered bickering is not conducive to civil discussion.