The Profit Motive Itself Makes the Best Case Against the FDA

One of President Trump's campaign pledges was to allow Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to "go wild" as head of Health and Human Services. Some welcomed the idea, scarred by memories such as covid lockdowns and government mask mandates that lasted well beyond the arrival of the vaccines. Others, well aware of Kennedy's conspiracism and anti-vaccine views, dreaded the news. Agencies under Kennedy, like the FDA, are charged with maintaining standards of medical safety and effectiveness. Does "go wild" mean freeing Americans to make our own health decisions -- or ramming bad advice down our throats?

As if to address the concerns of both groups, Kennedy's FDA announced in May that it approves covid boosters only for those over 65 or in other high-risk groups. The vaccine remains available to everyone, but insurers are no longer forced to cover the full cost (about $150). If you want to get the covid jab with your flu shot, you'll need to decide if a few extra days of health are worth the price. Leftists wailing about "access" notwithstanding, Kennedy hasn't "taken away" this vaccine.

The measure seems reasonable until one hears the rationale: Officials described the old guidance as "one-size-fits-all" and based on the assumption that Americans "are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations." First, millions were forgoing the shots. Second, the main impact is on insurance companies, whose job it is to know whether covering shots or treatments is profitable for any given group.

This comes across as an attempt to flatter voters who should be wondering: Why is someone, who sues vaccine makers and has no medical or scientific background or experience, in charge of what vaccines are available and what health insurers can or can not cover?

We know the short answer: Donald Trump wanted to reward Kennedy's support for his presidential campaign more than he cared about the health of his voters -- and nearly every Republican Senator (including four M.D.s !) went along with it.

But this dumpster fire would be impossible if the government weren't running the biomedical sector of the economy, rather than just protecting our freedom like they are supposed to.

Contrary to the notion that we need a government to ensure safe and effective drugs, there is ample evidence that the profit motive is necessary and sufficient for this purpose .

A company that manufactures effective products gains market share and makes money; a company that does not limps along if it survives at all. A case in point, the two manufacturers of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine, which completely prevents measles 97% of the time, are Merck and GSK. The smaller of these, GSK, earns over $32 billion per year. Meanwhile, homeopath quacks claim at least nine different "remedy options" (and zero preventatives) for measles. The top-grossing homeopathic company worldwide sees perhaps half a percent of GSK's yearly revenue.

Businessmen know that fly by night success is not enough. They are quick to address safety concerns. In the 1980's after several people were murdered with tainted Tylenol capsules, its manufacturer promptly warned customers in a media blitz, issued a nationwide recall, aided the investigation, and later reintroduced its product with tamper-resistant packaging.

Pharmaceutical firms rigorously test their products, and similar protocols in other industries show that they need not be forced to do so by the government. Numerous privately-funded organizations promoting standards exist. UL Enterprise, the Consumers Union, and the National Fire Protection Association are well-known examples of organizations that rigorously test products for safety and publish safety standards.

Unlike the FDA, none of these could prevent us from using safer technology if they were taken over by an incompetent or dishonest party tomorrow, and competing voices would be ready to fill the void, anyway.

Indeed, this may already be happening. Health experts are taking to professional publications to rally their colleagues to fight the tide of bad official advice they fear is coming. Said Kathryn Edwards of Vanderbilt of the Texas measles outbreak, "If the usual government sources of information cannot be relied on, medical journals and specialty societies must fill that gap. If our usual approaches are not effective, other strategies must be used."

For decades, Americans have been told that the government should be in charge of medical safety since it's so important. The appointment of Robert F. Kennedy has given the lie to this claim. The government, not subject to the scrutiny of the market, has no actual incentive to guard our safety. And the government, by virtue of its legal monopoly on coercive force can prevent us from acting sensibly, such as by taking vaccines. This is a clear violation of our right to life.

Our health is too important to leave in the hands of the government.