If you would give a balanced PoV you would not only count the good drugs that could have been, but also list all the bad ones that were fortunately prevented from being released on the public. If you only list one side, your argument is missing something essential. Loosening regulations has an effect not only on drugs that turn out to be very net positive, we will also see more bad ones. Now I'm just waiting for someone to point out that all we need is perfect regulation that exactly lets through all the good ones and filters all the bad ones....

I will go further. In the snake oil market, trying to produce actually good novel drugs is a loosing strategy. You wont be selling more, because you will have exactly the same footing as those who just lie and exaggerate over their results. Except they will have more funds to spread those lies and to convince people, because they did not wasted money on research.

some drug are moneymakers. lots of people can take them. viagra was that or now ozempic etc. but there's lots of novel drugs that never get past testing because they cost too much or the market too small to recover profit.

these studies struggle to find candidates, the testers rarely have serious side effects, so i think on the net this will not cause the harm you worry.

however! i would be worried taking new broad market drugs post any fda collapse.. but there's fewer of those on average. and pharma companies compete on efficacy and side effects and love to show investors results. so mixed bag.

we play it too safe. ozempic will save many many lives. if it had been approved years earlier it would have saved many many more. waiting for perfect is what the current system feels like, and seems like something you also know is foolish.

18 studies. only 6 novel. not a healthy ecosystem imo