How FDA Drug Approval Process is More About the Submitting Company than the Drug Itself

Executive Summary

  • The FDA pretends its drug approval process is about the information submitted to them in the documents.
  • In reality, the FDA approves based on the submitting company.


It is generally thought that the FDA’s drug approval process is based upon the data contained in the submission documents to the FDA from clinical trials. Evaluating what drugs the FDA approves illustrates that the FDA is not going off the clinical trials but is approving drugs based on the companies that submit.

Our References for This Article

If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.

Does the FDA Approve the Drug Itself, or is it an Approval Based Upon the Political Power of Submitting Firm?

The drug approval process by the FDA is far less about the safety and effectiveness of drugs and more about the entity’s size putting forward the submission. If that entity is large and has financial connections to the FDA board members, the FDA will approve the drug. This allowed the covid vaccines, which the studies clearly show did nothing against covid, to be approved (see the article How Effective Are the Covid Vaccines). And the FDA allows clinical trial data to be falsified with impunity.

This was exposed by whistleblowers that worked on the clinical trials of the Pfizer vaccine, and the FDA will do nothing.

This means that the FDA not only looks the other way on ludicrous math on relative risk improvement of a drug, allowing false efficacy claims, but the FDA will allow the falsification of math in the study. When informed of the whistleblower claims against the Pfizer study, the FDA succinctly stated, “they were aware of the claims,” and then did nothing to investigate them.

One might say the FDA should change its drug approval process language. The FDA is a rubber stamp for corrupt pharmaceutical companies allowing them to print money no matter how useless the drug is. When a drug is approved — that merely means the drug’s submitter has political power. So if Merck or Pfizer submits a drug, the FDA should say in their drug approval process notification not anything about the drug but instead declare that the pharmaceutical company is large and has many lobbyists. The approving board has several financial conflicts with that entity. In the future, clinical trials could be skipped altogether. The pharmaceutical company could simply point to its name on the submission and then redact all the information about the clinical trial, allowing it to skip the clinical trial altogether.

For example, the studies published on the site Frontiers in Public Health are enormously superior to the format in which the FDA accepts publication. In researching the covid vaccine studies, it was clear that many MDs were either lying about the covid vaccine studies or did not read them. The FDA’s publication standard, or at least how the studies are published and submitted to the FDA, is deliberately encapsulated and challenging to read.

It should be evident that Big Pharma will find a way to block the use of Ivermectin or other generic drugs for cancer in the same way they stopped them for covid treatment. At any time, Bill Gates’s foundation can fund a study designed to show the drug as ineffective, as Bill Gates did for hydroxychloroquine for covid.

Getting Realistic About the Poor Outcomes From Many FDA Approved Drugs

One should question the status quo and investigate, including analyzing undeclared financial ties, which are rife throughout the cancer treatment system. However, the medical system and health authorities like the NIH, CDC, FDA, American Cancer Society, etc., advise the public not to look at financial conflicts of interest. Naturally, all of these entities have enormous financial conflicts.