Of course I don't believe the FDA and doctors are flawless. But I trust that for something like an antibiotic that yes, they do know better than I do. Most people, myself included, don't know much about medicine. Most people, myself included, don't know much about most things. Civilization works through specialization, which means that most of the time, you will have to trust another person who has specialized in something you have not.

If the drug in question is not as pedestrian as an antibiotic, I may research it. But when I made the decision to take it, I would factor in the significant fact that the FDA had approved it. I consider this fact significant because the FDA is so strict about what drugs and procedures pass muster.

There's a probabilistic argument that I think you are skipping. Given what I know and what the FDA knows, I find it more likely that the FDA's decision on such things as what drugs are safe for what circumstances will maximize my well-being.

But I am not arguing we ban FDA approval. If we allow non-approved drugs, you are still free to restrict yourself to only FDA approved drugs.

I am arguing for more freedom, not less.

That allows things like basic medical safety to be determined by the free market, which we've tried before. It was dangerous.

I am not sure what you mean? Before we did not have things like the USDA or FDA.

If we maintain that it is illegal to claim regulatory approval unless you actually have it, then that gives us a choice (between tested/approved and not) which we have not had before, and don't have now.

What we have done, is replace all lack of regulation and testing with a universal mandate for extremely long and expensive regulation and testing.

I feel like everyone is interpreting my point as a dichotomy between everything or nothing, between the situation as it is today or total anarchy. But that is not at all what I am saying.