Thoughts:

It's a review board. Not licensed. MASSIVE difference. I mean, truly vast. From the articles I am not exactly sure what they were asking for. Was this seeking approval for a phase 1 trial?
Not so many years ago, for Phase 1 trials, companies didn't need approval. They just paid some people and gave them the drugs and saw what happened.

The system seems incredibly lax, as most of the time the companies need such good evidence for the drug approval (which is a different thing, requiring about 50,000+ pages of data and explanations and three rounds of questions from experts, plus a Q&A in person if required) that they were relying on the company only needing a rubber stamp - as no one can afford to blow tens of millions on a duff trial (plus the indirect cost to be seen to be taking risks).

These... non ethical ethics committees should be scrapped, but this isn't evidence that bad drugs are getting to market - as the author happily makes the herculean jump between this and post-registration drug withdrawal (and let's not forget - who finds out these drugs are dangerous? The companies themselves - as they undertake PSUR - Periodic Safety Update Reports!!!)