OK.
Be fair, the posting was in uk.d-i-y on the topic of the safe removal of lead bearing paint ! For that purpose it was accurate enough IMO, even if unbalanced in the face of conflicting opinions.
The trouble for a layman reading this topic up nowadays is the amount of single interest group propaganda (mostly anti vivisectionist) out there. In any event it is always difficult to differentiate between conspiracies and c*ck-ups.
Having checked, I accept that nowadays the conventional wisdom is that the Thalidomide disaster was as a result of a c*ck-up. They marketed a drug for the treatment of Morning Sickness in Pregnancy and didn't test it on pregnant animals. What is more, the regulatory agency (whoever it was at the time) failed to protect the public from this. This seems scarcely credible from today's perspective and feeds the conspiracy theories.
OTOH A report I read (can't find it now, conspiracy theorists, no doubt) said they tested it and discarded unfavourable results.
The anti-vivisectionists say that even if they had tested it on pregnant animals then it wouldn't have revealed any hazard.
I note from my reading that the FDA never allowed Thalidomide to be prescribed in the USA because they were not satisfied with the rigor of the testing in Europe.
All that said, I'm sure you wouldn't want to let any of this give succour to people who say that Lead may not be toxic because medical testing is not reliable.
And finally, I'd just add that my cousin had a baby sometime around
1961 which was stillborn with deformed limbs, she had been taking Thalidomide. The midwife said they (at the maternity hospital) couldn't understand what was happening, they had been "overwhelmed" with babies with deformed limbs over the previous fortnight, presumably when all the involved pregnancies started to come to term.DG