>
Creating the First Synthetic Human D.N.A From Scratch
Texas Ready for $10M Bitcoin Purchase After Governor Signs Bill for State Reserve
How do you feel about this use of AI
Big Tech Executives Welcomed as Army Colonels, New Government AI Project Leaked
xAI Grok 3.5 Renamed Grok 4 and Has Specialized Coding Model
AI goes full HAL: Blackmail, espionage, and murder to avoid shutdown
BREAKING UPDATE Neuralink and Optimus
1900 Scientists Say 'Climate Change Not Caused By CO2' – The Real Environment Movement...
New molecule could create stamp-sized drives with 100x more storage
DARPA fast tracks flight tests for new military drones
ChatGPT May Be Eroding Critical Thinking Skills, According to a New MIT Study
How China Won the Thorium Nuclear Energy Race
Sunlight-Powered Catalyst Supercharges Green Hydrogen Production by 800%
For most of my life, I've observed the FDA belligerently suppress natural treatments and any unorthodox therapy which threatens the medical monopoly while simultaneously railroading through a variety of unsafe and ineffective drugs regardless of how much public protest the agency meets. Consider this 2004 Senate testimony by the FDA scientist who got Vioxx banned that accurately described exactly what would come to pass with the COVID vaccines two decades later.
As such, I do not hold the FDA in a positive light, especially given that during COVID-19, I (like many others) spent hundreds of hours trying to get the agency to allow the limited use of off-patent therapeutics for COVID-19—all of which ultimately went nowhere due to the unjustifiable roadblocks the agency kept putting up.
Over the past year, especially since Trump's election, I've received many questions about FDA reform. To address the issue properly, I've carefully examined both sides.
In medicine, "sensitivity" refers to a test's ability to correctly identify those who have a condition (e.g., detecting an infection), while "specificity" measures how well the test avoids false positives (i.e., correctly identifying those who don't have the condition). The challenge is that improving one often reduces the other. For example, increasing the PCR cycle threshold in COVID tests made it more likely to detect infections (higher sensitivity), but also increased false positives (lower specificity). This trade-off leads to problems, like breast cancer screenings, where high sensitivity can result in false positives and unnecessary "treatments" for women who don't actually have cancer.
The FDA faces a similar challenge: it must prevent harmful foods and drugs from reaching the market while ensuring useful products aren't blocked. Though this seems straightforward, it's incredibly difficult, and the FDA has often failed at both, even with leadership dedicated to public health.
Crime Against the Food Law
In the late 1800s, food producers were selling adulterated products, and pharmaceutical companies peddled medicines with secret ingredients like opium and alcohol. Public outrage grew, especially after exposés like Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, which helped spark the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. This law gave the Bureau of Chemistry the power to ensure accurate labeling and prevent harmful additives in food.
The director of the Bureau of Chemistry (and thus the first head of the FDA), Harvey Wiley conducted tests on food additives, proving they made healthy volunteers sick. While the public and many scientists supported his findings, the food industry fought back with powerful lobbyists and legal tactics.