9 votes

FDA is killing Americans at the rate of 100,000 a year, every year, like clockwork

If you worked for a federal agency that was killing people at the rate of 100,000 a year, every year, like clockwork, and if you knew it, wouldn’t you feel compelled to say or do something about it?

At the FDA, which is, in fact, killing Americans at that rate, no one has ever felt the need to step forward and speak up.

Let’s shift the venue and ask the same question. If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn’t you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?

I’m talking about people like Sanjay Gupta (CNN, CBS), Gina Kolata (NY Times), Tim Johnson (ABC News), and Thomas Maugh II (LA Times).

And with that, let’s go to the smoking guns. The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There is no way the FDA is killing 100,000 perople per year.

It is many multiples of that number when you consider beneficial treatments that are prohibited and the countless number of ineffective or damaging drugs that are approved, and even forced on people.

The FDA is simply an enforcement arm of the medical/drug establishment. The only protection involved is the profitability of the industry.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

The FDA doesn't kill, they just oversee.

See the report posted below, Death by Medicine, by Dr Gary Null. It documents how 789, 936 patients lost their lives in 2004. It is fully referenced.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

Death by Medicine, by Dr. Gary Null, 783,936 deaths in 2004

This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be 2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year.

The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number of deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251.5)

Actual Report, Full:

Trailer to movie:

Book from Amazon:

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

It's not about stopping

... wrong thread! :)

wolfe's picture


Because those people are -forced- to take FDA approved meds.

I thought this was going to the idea that the FDA bans very useful meds.

To say that they approve dangerous things is silly, not libertarian, and your own damn fault for taking them.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

I had the same thought.

Let's say the FDA did not exist. Would the pharmaceutical industry disappear? Likely not. There would be an even larger number of drugs both good and bad. To your point.. if someone says it is okay to take something it is ONLY you who actually decides to do it.

-Matthew Good

Is there such a thing

"good" pharma drug???

Without the FDA to approve

Without the FDA to approve drugs drug companies wouldn't have protection from tort.

Without protection from tort they would have to have underwriting against liability.

The underwriters only make money if they charge more for insurance than gets paid out in a period. It's their job to know the risk, if they fail they lose money.

The drug companies in turn want the cheapest underwriting, to get the cheapest underwriting they will have to comply with safety standards.

The FDA is supposed to ensure safety, but since they can't lose money, they actually have incentive to let people be harmed. When people are harmed they can call for a greater budget.

Private underwriters also do not have as much incentive to deny new drugs, and in any case have no power to literally interdict them.

In a free market you would be free to try new drugs. Either on your own or with your doctor's recommendation. If you try something that is not insured, like if you are dying and have tried everything else, well that is your choice.

wolfe's picture


You have made a compelling case for the "moral hazard" generated in the pharma business, and I don't disagree.

But, I still fail to see how that relates to someone choosing to take something or not. It is personal responsibility.

Now, if you want to talk about the things the FDA bans while promoting the dangerous alternatives... That is another story. They kill more through cutting off the supply of useful drugs, than they ever could by letting others through.

The FDA is evil, and needs to be disbanded... But how are we to live on "free market" principles if we won't take personal responsibility and instead say, "But the FDA said I could have it so it must be safe."

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

I don't disagree with the deont case

I was just making the case about results.

The doentological case is simple, but not everyone 'gets' it.

The most obvious is deonts say taxation is theft so we shouldn't tax. Consequentialists say "well yes but, who would build the roads?" or whatever. Those people want those kind of questions answered.

So we need to make both cases because people are different. Some people are moved by the principled argument. Some are moved by argument from utility.

What is amazing is that it turns out that following principles actually has the best results. Every thing that points to bad results (on net) from firmly standing on principles is a historical lie and fraud.

So I was just pointing out that in a free market the results would actually be better. Better and safer drugs. Following principles has better results.

But people's brains have been so jacked up by socialized education it's hard to show them facts. I suspect it's why when people like me make this case it makes you uneasy. You aren't sure the free market would actually work better, and your principles say, whether it does or not, the FDA (in this example) is wrong.

So when I point out it would work better you impute that if it were not the case I might choose in favor of the FDA or the government.

But this is like worrying about how things would be in a universe where gravity pushed things up. If gravity pushed things up yes I would behave differently but this is not the nature of our universe. If government made things better, yes I might behave differently but this is not the nature of our universe.

So to use Bob Murphy's analogy, some people, perhaps like you, can just know it's true that the angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees. I had to go measure a bunch to be convinced. But I don't measure anymore. I no longer question the fact. I see no reason but to think that it is simply the nature of our universe that triangles add up to 180. Similarly all the claims of the state and how they 'help' us. I had to figure it out. Basically debunk the economic nonsense I had been fed. But now I have, and I can explain how the lies are lies. It is the nature of governments to lie. If they told the truth they wouldn't be governments. They have to lie because telling the truth reduces their profits.

When trying to maximize your profits from human livestock, you find chattel slavery is less efficient than democracy. Under chattel slavery you need pretty much a fixed ratio of whip wielders to slaves. Under democracy you are only taking a percentage, but you can let them breed forever, and the ratio of whip wielders to slaves can be extremely high. but this requires the livestock believe, and that requires the masters lie.

Makes sense.

If the governments sole power is the monopoly of force?
Then it only makes sense the larger it gets the more people must die.