Drugs *are* measured for safety. This is the purpose of the FDA. Further to the 10;10:3 example you made, do you actually have the statistics of adverse effects for any drugs? Even if you did and they looked numerically acceptable, you'd probably claimed that the results were falsified, or that they are not reflected in the real world because of the way the samples were done. This may be valid, maybe not. Would 1000:15:1 be acceptable for you? There's still one person dying there. For the 15 being harmed, what is the degree of harm that's acceptable? I'm sure many of these also have some benefit in addition to the side effects.
The government has set guidelines as to what's acceptable. I personally don't know what they are, or how well they are adhered to. I don't think many people care, just as I've repetitively drawn the parallel to taxpayers and their money. 30% of your lifeforce - i.e. 30% of your time spent working goes to the government, and they tell you that they will spend it justly to your best benefit. I don't believe it. But I don't see any revolts happening. Recently a politician told the transit commission that the city didn't have $6 million for transport costs. Soon thereafter, newspaper reporters showed that the same guy had spent $2 million of taxpayer money to upgrade his offices. This guy was not held responsible or lynched or sent to jail or asked to justify himself. You don't think it's totally outrageous that you should spend 1/3 of your lifetime to in part enable the comforts of some lazy politicians?

In the same way that our money is given to administrators, so is the responsibility for health care given to doctors. Personally I feel better that they should be standardized in the way they practice, much like the government supposedly has some laws governing the way they spend our money. If herbalists and alternative medicine proponents feel their stuff works, they should use the same avenues that drug makers do to authorize and popularize their remedies. Personally, I feel more comfortable with standardized methods and medicines being prescribed by a university graduate who has had clinical training, versus a guy who did a two-week course from some herbalist cult that relies on anecdotal evidence and placebo techniques. This is not to say that the first method is perfect or that it is free from systemic corruption or bias, nor that the second method is without any real cures.

You may be shocked to learn that some of the moneys given by drug firms to doctors and clinics is actually without any strings attached! Yes, the doctors do expect to be compensated for recruiting patients for the drugs studies, and I believe most of them inform the potential recruits of the possible side effects rather than secretly use them as guinea pigs. Relative to the money they make from their profession, trust me, for the majority of them, it would not be worth risking their license for a "bribe" from a drug company. Many also have a conscience.
Besides that the drug companies have to actually pay highly qualified people to do their evil bidding (i.e. real clinical trials, or explaining to groups how a drug works, should god forbid there actually be drugs that work and are safe), they also like to make donations to clinics that deal with disease. Much like billionaires like to make donations to charities - giving back a little fraction of the monstrous sum they suck from the world, and making themselves look like nice guys in the process.