Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason this is unpopular is because of how obviously incorrect it is. The history of medicine is almost an allegory for why evolved evidence based systems like this to regulate what companies and doctors can do. Time and again, doctors and pharmaceutical companies have done unsafe, harmful and fraudulent things to patients who trusted them. The only reason we have medicine that works now is because we rigorously…
I spent time at a large medical device company. I'm lightly familiar with the FDA submission process. I would not refer to it as rigorous. We were encouraged to keep the information light or the FDA would be easily confused and reject. Rejection had more to do with giving the FDA simple warm fuzzies rather than rigorous data analysis. The FDA process is more an exercise in paperwork, not in rigorous drug/device perfo…
To me, it's similar to having more trust for media outlets that post corrections rather than pretending that nothing ever goes wrong. It's a point in their favor that a stamp of approval can be rescinded.
You might have an argument that the companies need to be taken out of the drug approval process entirely, due to issues of hiding data to avoid giving the FDA a hint of anything wrong (or making them "confused" as you say), or maybe we need much stricter rules on data withholding. I'm with you there.