The FDA is literally preventing Americans from protecting themselves from cancer.
While people in the US burn with decades-old sunscreen formulas, Europeans and Australians enjoy superior protection that the American government won't let its citizens buy.
The bureaucracy is so broken that one company has spent 20 years and $18 million trying to get FDA approval for a single sunscreen ingredient. 🧵
The FDA hasn't approved a new sunscreen ingredient since 1999.
Let that sink in. Your smartphone has been updated thousands of times since then, but your cancer protection is stuck in the Clinton administration.
Meanwhile, dermatologists routinely recommend sunscreens from Australia, Europe, and Asia that Americans can't legally access.
International sunscreens contain newer UVA filters like bemotrizinol that offer stronger, broader protection.
US sunscreens focus mainly on preventing sunburn but provide weaker coverage against the deeper skin damage that causes cancer and aging. Europeans got bemotrizinol in 2000. Australians in 2004. Even Canadians got it in 2023.
Why the delay? Because a 1938 law classifies sunscreen as an over-the-counter drug requiring lengthy clinical trials, while most countries treat it as a cosmetic product.
Think about this: you can walk into any store and buy ibuprofen, which can cause stomach ulcers, kidney damage, and heart problems. But sunscreen gets stuck in an 86-year-old regulatory framework that nobody bothered to update.
The absurdity gets worse.
Americans literally stock up on superior sunscreens when traveling abroad because they know the difference. But not everyone can afford international travel to protect their family from cancer.
The FDA is creating a two-tiered system: good protection for the wealthy, inferior protection for everyone else.
This is "drug lag" in action, the additional time FDA requirements force consumers to wait before accessing better products.
As @dr4liberty noticed in his article published by CATO Institute (cato.org/blog/bureaucra…): "Drug lag is cruelest to terminally ill patients, to whom it denies the right to try to save their lives by using drugs that have already been proven safe but are awaiting efficacy approval. Many seriously ill Americans die waiting for the FDA to approve drugs that regulators in other countries have already approved."
People are literally dying waiting for treatments available elsewhere.
Even if bemotrizinol gets approved tomorrow, there are several other proven sun filters Americans still can't access: Tinosorb M, Mexoryl SX, Mexoryl XL, and Uvinal A Plus.
Each one requires the same bureaucratic marathon. Each delay means more cancer cases that could have been prevented.
The real tragedy? We'll never know how many people got skin cancer because they couldn't access better sunscreen.
The FDA can point to their "rigorous safety standards." But they can't point to the families who never had to deal with preventable cancer diagnoses.
Bureaucrats measure their success by procedures followed, not lives improved.
How many cases of skin cancer could have been prevented if Americans had access to the world's best sunscreens? We'll never know—but the delay is indefensible.
Want to learn how to spot these kinds of government failures before they become obvious?
Check out our free 5-day course: How to Not Be An NPC—Think Like Thomas Sowell
A Czech playwright predicted the Soviet collapse 11 years before it happened.
While CIA analysts studied missile counts and economic indicators, Václav Havel explained why communist regimes would fall from moral exhaustion, destroying itself from the inside.
The experts dismissed him. History proved them wrong. 🧵
In 1978, The Soviet System Looked Permanent
Western analysts treated communist rule as unchangeable fact. Military power. Total surveillance. Complete control.
Political scientists predicted gradual reform at best. Revolution seemed impossible.
But they were missing one important factor.
Havel Understood What The Data Couldn't Capture
In his underground essay "The Power of the Powerless," written in 1978, Havel identified the regime's hidden fragility.
Communist systems didn't survive through force alone. They required mass participation in obvious lies.
Every citizen had to pretend the system worked. Every worker had to attend celebrations for policies they knew were failing. Every student had to repeat slogans contradicting observable reality.
This created exhaustion that military strength couldn't cure.
Ronald Coase set out to prove that Socialism was superior to the chaos of the market.
So he went to America to see how giant industries were actually managed.
What he found destroyed his worldview. And won him a Nobel Prize.
This is the story of how a young socialist became one of the most important economists of the 20th century by following evidence over ideology. 🧵
London, 1929. A 19-year-old economics student at LSE calls himself a "soft socialist."
The intellectual consensus seemed obvious: markets were chaos, central planning was science.
His professors had a compelling argument: businesses are already mini-planned economies. If planning works inside firms, why not scale it to entire nations?
For young Coase, the logic felt inevitable. Scientific management promised order. The invisible hand looked like randomness.
But in 1931, he won a scholarship that would change everything: a chance to study American industry firsthand.
He went expecting to document techniques for improving socialist planning. He found something that shattered his worldview instead.
Everyone Wants Democratic Transition for Venezuela
But how do you restore democracy in a kleptocratic state captured by criminal elites?
To understand the problem, you need to understand how Venezuela got here. This story is a stark reminder that freedom isn't lost overnight, but slowly dismantled, one piece at a time. 🧵
The Liberation Myth: Venezuela Started With a Promise
In 1811, Simon Bolivar liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule. He dreamed of a unified, free South America built on republican ideals.
But Bolivar's revolution created a nation, not stability. What followed was a century of chaos.
A Century of Strongmen: The 19th Century Belonged to Caudillos
After independence came civil wars, military coups, and regional warlords fighting for control. Venezuela cycled through dozens of governments.
Power didn't come from elections. It came from controlling enough armed men to take Caracas. Whoever seized the capital claimed to speak for the nation.
“I'm against Maduro, but I think what Trump did was wrong.”
This sentence sounds reasonable, balanced, and mature. The kind of thing a serious person would say to avoid seeming radical.
The problem is that this sentence is, morally, one of the worst possible positions on Venezuela. 🧵
Not because it's moderate. But because it's a conscious escape. That "but" isn't prudence. It's a silent plea for moral exoneration.
The attempt to appear sophisticated while avoiding the thing that morality often demands: to hierarchize evil. To say what is worse. To choose.
Let's be clear about what we're "balancing" here.
Under Maduro's "socialism of the 21st century," Venezuela collapsed into hyperinflation exceeding 1,000,000%. Systematic scarcity created mass starvation. Venezuelans resorted to eating dogs and scavenging trash to survive.
These aren't political talking points. These are documented atrocities.