T Nation

Did You Know the FDA Murders People?

Right now, there are people suffering and dying of horrible diseases that are ameliorable with advanced treatments that they cannot access due to FDA regulations. In many cases these treatments are already proven “safe” by FDA standards, and there is already some degree of evidence showing that they may work, but patients still can’t get them because the proprietors haven’t met the arbitrary standards of politicians and bureaucrats.

Suppose you’re dying of ALS, about to lose your one precious existence forever. You could like save yourself if you were free to receive an infusion of your body’s own cells, but you aren’t because Federal regulators have you trapped inside their safe walls, claiming the right to “protect” you from the possibility that you might spend your money on something that doesn’t work, and they just can’t bear to see that happen.

The regulationist doesn’t care that you’re willing to accept the risk with your own health and resources. He wants his will for your life to prevail over your own will will for your life.

The regulationist literally says: “I would rather see you die than get your hopes up over something that I’m not convinced will work. It doesn’t matter that your doctor thinks it’s worth trying, what matters is that, in MY opinion, anything not blessed by the FDA is snake oil. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s in your best interest to try the drug, because I feel that suffering and death are best for you. It doesn’t matter what you want for your body. What matters is what I want for your body.”

The regulationist’s ethos is based on the assumption that he owns your life, like a monarch or slave owner. The FDA treats patients like human property. The patients are a tiny, helpless minority with no voice and are politically dominated by regulationists.

Cutting a person off from his pursuit of health is murder. Obstructing a person’s access to a needed medicine is no different than shooting him between the eyes point blank.

First of all they’re called regulators. Secondly, Zep is that you?


I think regulationist should be a word. I think we should try and add ist or ism to words whenever possible. I believe there is a sociology class at Berkeley that does just that.

1 Like

Redundanist, you are.

1 Like

The first thing to ask is whether you are okay with a regulated medical industry.

If you are, then you cannot expect governments to endorse items without an evidence base and without a high level of safety.

If you are not, then you are unlikely to see good drugs on the market as desperate people look to cheap alternatives that are sold by charasmatic people that promise their drug will cure your cancer, your erection issues and drop that last 10lbs of fat with one convenient pill.


Damn straight bro. Where do yall think baby oil comes from?

I’ll give you a hint. It’s just like olive oil, but babies.


Regulationist is a word. It subsumes not just regulators themselves, but their institutional apologists and enablers.

Fair … like revivalists or evangelists

I know.

As a connotationist, I disagree with your word choice of subsume in that sentence.

As a subtle-ist, my posts are because I disagree with your choice of the word “murder” in the title of your thread.


I was aware.

While I don’t agree with many of the assumptions in the OP, like “regulationists” assuming they own our lives, are murders, etc… I do think that we should be able to access drugs without doctor prescription. Not a fan of middle man, nanny care I guess.

Something to consider is that insurance won’t pay for it under those conditions.

That is true. I guess I am okay with going through a doctor if insurance is going to pay for it. I think we should be able to get most things over the counter if we want to pay for them out of pocket though. I guess, it feels like I am being babied, and that they think we are too stupid to make decisions about drugs. I am sure for some that it is better that they can’t do what I propose. I just think we should have the right to buy and consume things as long as we are not impacting others. I think the same for recreational drugs.

We can’t make good decisions about food so they have a point.

I agree. I guess, I think as far as rights should go, that we should be able to do it. I think they have helped many people by imposing these rules about drugs, but the rules go against my philosophy of having laws and rules to limit people from harming others.

I don’t think the way most people eat is intelligent, but I support their right to eat how they choose. A few of my friends are into the abuse category with steroids. I think they are being stupid, but I don’t agree with the laws against them obtaining and using them.

1 Like

Obesity has an effect on others. People self medicating and getting addicted has an effect others.

It is an impact that I put outside of what we should have laws about. Being an insensitive person has effects on others, that isn’t illegal. I am talking more about impacting others in ways that other illegal acts impact others.