"There is no evidence that safety regulations have denied us some miracle drug."

Well, of course we don't know of a specific miracle drug they've denied us, because it isn't until after a drug is in wide use that you find out whether it's a miracle drug or not. But we can see that there were enormous numbers of miracle drugs in the 20 years immediately preceding the safety regulations, and almost none in the 63 years since then. There have definitely been some† but a very large slowdown is clearly evident if you look at the history. Most of even the important new drugs since then are slight variations on previously known molecules.

A reasonable inference from these observations is that safety regulations have denied us a lot of miracle drugs.

______

† zidovudine, Paxlovid, oral rehydration therapy, ivermectin, propofol, SSRIs, sildenafil, acyclovir, misoprostol, ritonavir, and arguably buprenorphine come to mind; and time will tell whether lovastatin and semaglutide belong on this list or on the failures list with fen/phen and heroin.

In the domain of natural sciences, throughout history, there have been periods of high and low rate of progress. All you have evidence for is that progress has slowed down and your own personal belief linking it to another event in history (among thousands of events) - But you haven't shown any positive evidence of something being lost (i.e. scientific data/research), besides arguing for it with words. Sorry, your so called reasonable inference doesn't seem reasonable to me.