Regulators are political amalgamations; as we've seen recently with Alzheimers and this drug, those entities can be quite powerful.

While the current participants in the system might not be perfect, it should be appreciated that humanity has seldom had it better in terms of being able to trust civic institutions.

I don’t see the purpose of complaining about it in a situation where the institutions are working as intended (and desired).

Here, the institution has approved a couple Alzheimers drugs and an ALS drug that do nothing-- overcome by both things mentioned above that should not have the power to approve a drug -- "greed from the drug manufacturer and wishful thinking from the afflicted" -- indeed, the exact purpose of drug regulators is to safeguard is from those things.

So: there's a purpose in complaining about it and hoping that regulator and regulation can be improved.

not to mention the revolving door between drug company execs and regulators - which is ripe for conflicts of interest.

What percent of FDA scientists and committee members who are in charge of approving drugs have been part of the “revolving door?” And how do we know this is inherently bad? It may be, but I can also see how niche expertise would cause you to float between entities as appropriate.

Keep in mind 90% of drugs fail clinical trials. The situation cannot be THAT bad.

The specific cases we're talking about is where FDA political appointees have overridden and/or appointed new advisory committees for a redo.