Beyond "Abolish The FDA"

Scott's practical reply to the 'Abolish the FDA' slogan: the cascade of problems full abolition creates (prescriptions? factory inspections? dumb-doctors-and-free-pens? vanishing studies? insurance reform?), the supplement world as the existing 'FDA-almost-abolished' natural experiment (cheap, innovative, surprisingly safe, but doctors ignore it), and two concrete adoptable proposals: legalize synthetic supplements (scrap the 'natural product' rule) and an 'experimental drug' (safety-tested-not-efficacy-tested, labeled EXPERIMENTAL) category.

Quality 70 · Strong. Clean, fair, practical policy reasoning: translates a slogan into the real institutional cascade it implies, uses the supplement world as a sharp natural experiment, and lands two genuinely adoptable proposals. Strong, not deeper: bounded scope (~2.2k, a slogan-to-policy translation) and the proposals are sensible-incremental rather than field-defining.

Claude’s paradigm shift 48 · Moderate. Moderate - the supplement-world-as-FDA-abolition-natural-experiment framing is a fresh, useful angle; the proposals are modest syntheses.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. 2 - a live policy debate, but the post's own real-world impact is within-discourse.