::Thanks! I appreciate the information leads! Is this report the last word on the Metabolite files? If so, your "over 15,000 reports" was actually 14,459 "computer files" - scanned fax pages, probably - which translated into a smaller number of "reports" and an even smaller number of "significant adverse effect" reports, covering a roughly 5-year period (1997-2002). According to the House report linked above, when they finished filing and categorizing everything it amounted to 1,985 reports of significant adverse effects, including 3 (yes, 3!) deaths. My calculation above suggests we should expect ~10 deaths per year (or 50 in 5), so these 3 are probably already accounted for in the existing odds. The newly-documented 42 hospitalizations and 82 emergency room visits also are within a rough order-of-magnitude of prior estimates. 

 ::Even if I accepted the numbers on their face, I don't find the comparison to herbal supplements enlightening. Most herbal supplements don't do anything, certainly not anything so valuable as enabling significant weight loss. I suppose this reinforces that it really is a drug, not a nutritional item, and perhaps should be legally categorized as such. But it doesn't say much about the core question: whether the net benefits outweigh the costs. (I think clarity is suffering a bit by not clearly distinguishing between ephedrine+caffeine versus supplements that had ephedra, caffeine, and a dozen other wacky active ingredients in there for marketing purposes.)