That Thalidomide was not approved by the FDA, while it hurt thousands of babies around the the world is probably a big reason that FDA has been very restrictive in the 60 years since, and often bans drugs that are available in the rest of the world.

The FDA famously didn't approve Thalidomide, which meant only 17 people were affected in the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#History

(I don't think this affects your argument directionally, but worth noting.)

>(I don't think this affects your argument directionally, but worth noting.)

Aside, but this is high class discussion culture I haven't seen on the Internet in a while.

How could getting the facts not just wrong, but backwards, not affect the argument directionally? He got the direction wrong!

Thalidomide was not approved in the US until long after the birth defect scandal, FWIW.

Those killed millions of people?

If the goal is to shock people into thinking a certain way, 20,000 deformed infants has more or less the same shock-value as 1 million deaths.

(Obviously talking about Thalidomide here)

Thalidomide was used and approved around the world, not just in the US. It’s an interesting example of something but not millions of deaths.

But I get a sense that the original poster isn’t sincerely interested in talking about the complex question, how should the FDA regulate drugs?

One thing’s for sure: High drama personalities have always had a tenuous understanding of the facts behind their “shock” and outrages. Or maybe one of the commenters has learned a valuable lesson about copy and pasting from chatbots.

Speaking of factual drama, Thalidomide was not approved in the US during all the drama in the 60s.

It has since been approved for cancer where its benefits outweigh the side effects, but it doesn't negate that the FDA prevented harm to babies by blocking it in the 60s.

The Therac-25 (where did the -3 come from?) killed four and seriously injured 2.

I supposed 6 is kind of like 1 million, for large values of 6.