I think that you don't understand Tena's intent for this post. MY interpretation of what she is trying to get across is that WE are the real guinea pigs in the FDA's go ahead to introduce ANY drug into society. She focuses on Thalidomide as an example and this begs the reader to extrapolate the message to there own personal use of medications, to become more involved in seeking out information of what exactly it is that doctors prescribe that we put in our bodies.
By early 1967, it was known that only one of the optical isomers was responsible for the teratogenicity of Thalidomide, and indeed it was the biolgically inactive one. Thalidomide was then after it's use was banned ,further studied, resulting in articles like this for example

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/....082901.104043 and this is just the tip of the iceberg of what can be gleaned of the biological activity of Thalidomide using just the free stuff that you can get on the net

IN other words she focused on the many years that it takes a drug, to really understand it's full clinical profile in humans. This is pertinent here because we have new drugs coming out, that were pressed hard to sell to us PWP, drugs that we see are having a wide range of negative effects over time. THis brings back an older dopamine agonist Permax, that many PWP were prescribed and over 20 years later it's negatve effects on the human heart valve were finally fleshed out(, i know, bad pun). I got her drift quite easily, as I'm sure many others who read here did too.
And please be nice and don't refer to someone's ideas for posting as being LAME. Tena and several other men and women around here spend a lot of time doing net searches and come up with some really fantastic reading. Calling someone's examples of whatever they post as URL's as being LAME, only reflects badly on the attitude and knowledge and understanding of the responder. Capice, Madame?