https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-02-feds-limit-telehealth-prescriptions-drugs.html
Gee, I wonder if Ivermectin and HCQ will eventually be on the can-not-prescribe list for telehealth providers.
Yet another reason why REGULATION of ANY industry should be done by non-government groups -- think Underwriter Labs or National Fire Safety Foundation rather than the FDA or ATF.
No. Think ADL or all Soros and Gates NGOs -- yes, they are actual regulators behind sold-out government agencies. Gov.agency role is to be auditable, transparent and thus, controlled by people. We need the return of transparency to regulators, removal of all ADLs from their food chain.
Seriously? You think the FDA is controlled by the People? For decades, the FDA has been the single largest cause of death for American citizens. And EVERY federal regulatory agency is "captured" -- controlled for the benefit of special interests, NOT "the People."
Long term, there IS no stopping the dynamic of government agencies becoming used for special interests and against the People. That's why "that government is best, which governs least." Or, as Thoreau put it in Civil Disobedience: "That government is best, which governs not at all." Civil society, not coercive government.
I seriously think the mechanisms of (original) gov.agencies are built to keep them in check and banish those special interests. Yes, currently (at least 60 years!) agencies are taken over, and all checks eluded. Maybe, they must go, to get rid of that capture, but so far I believe we will need some societal bodies to discern snake oil from real ivermectin and let us know what is what. Do you think everyone can research everything on their own? Every invention, every discovery, every, hell, food recipe? Without bodies who can make their living with that research, we'll have all the snake oil salesmen / sinaloas and zero accountability.
I understand your viewpoint and used to have the same opinion myself. But the harm caused by coercively imposing the opinions of non-elected regulators (or even if they were elected) far outweighs any good it does, as we've seen vividly of late in regards the deadly COVID protocols, damaging lockdowns and other COVID theater, and the bioweapon "vaccines."
Back in the '80s, Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, in Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach, argued that the FDA be limited to providing information so that people could make their own choices. NO COERCION. Freedom, in other words.
The FDA outlawed Stevia for years, starting soon after Monsanto came up with Aspartame -- without the FDA's action, aspartame would have had a very hard time taking over the non-sugar sweetener market because Stevia has been used by humans for centuries, is known to be very safe, and was already used in some zero-cal soft drinks and other products. FDA banned stevia so Monsanto could make $billions, not for any health concern.
That's one of the more benign stories about FDA action.
Problems of corruption and harm are seen in EVERY U.S. regulatory agency going back to the very first one in 1887.
From a 2009 investigative story about Obamacare:
[Moving into the present, and returning to the topic of Obamacare, Mitchell continues]: