The irony is specifically why I posted it. FDA approval is treated as a "gold standard" yet we have lots of evidence that it isn't. Companies lie, make non-inte

The irony is specifically why I posted it. FDA approval is treated as a "gold standard" yet we have lots of evidence that it isn't. Companies lie, make non-intentional mistakes not caught by the FDA, there's all sorts of issues with it. The FDA review process is more like an editor checking spelling than actual rigorous analysis. I don't think your media analogy is accurate. It would be like the government censoring media companies, but having a poor biased criteria which then changes later, but is also subject to lies, etc. I don't think its a good analogy. I think drug companies should be rated on their data openness, with enough information to reproduce results. I think approval processes should be replaced with levels of confidence certifications. For example: Gold is independent labs find similar results to internal labs (verified) Silver is only internal labs produced results, not reproduced elsewhere etc.