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
The libertarian kid in your economics class just interrupted the professor for the third time this week, lecturing about Austrian economics while everyone stares at their phones.
After class: "Libertarians are such... you know."
How does someone fighting for freedom become the person everyone actively avoids? 🧵
Leonard Read saw this coming decades ago.
He warned that liberty would suffer if its advocates tried to 'reform' others like central planners: through lectures, pressure campaigns, and force.
The problem isn't the ideas. It's the method.
Read argued for a completely different approach: self-improvement.
Don't try to change people. Live your values so well that others come to you.
You don't win converts by out-talking them; you attract them by becoming someone worth listening to.
After watching thousands of students over two decades, we can say he was 100% right.
It's always funny seeing socialists say they "follow the science."
Because when Stalin decided DNA was right-wing propaganda, they shot every scientist who disagreed. The story of how ideology murdered genetics—and millions of people. 🧵
Picture this: You're a brilliant geneticist in 1930s Soviet Union.
You've spent years studying how traits pass from parents to offspring.
Your research could help feed millions. But there's a problem. Your science contradicts the party line.
Stalin's solution? Kill the science by killing the scientists.
Meet Trofim Lysenko—a peasant turned "scientist" who claimed genetics was bourgeois propaganda.
His "revolutionary" theory? Plants of the same class would never compete with each other because they understood socialist cooperation.
So he planted seeds so close together they choked each other to death.
Your professor talks about inflation, housing costs, and wage stagnation like they're mysterious natural forces.
But there's one date they never mention—the day everything changed: August 15, 1971.
That's when Nixon broke the money system. 🧵
Your wallet has been paying for Nixon's decision ever since.
Fifty years of "temporary" monetary policy have systematically transferred wealth from savers to asset owners, from workers to Wall Street, from your generation to the political class.
This isn't economics—it's organized theft.
Before 1971, the U.S. promised the world: "Every $35 we print can be exchanged for exactly 1 ounce of gold."
Foreign governments could literally ship their dollars to Fort Knox and get gold bars back. When France's Charles de Gaulle got suspicious of American spending, he sent warships to New York and exchanged $150 million for gold.
This system kept America honest. Print too many dollars? Countries would drain your gold reserves.
Your professor loves this story. Politicians too. But there's one problem: Sweden got rich BEFORE it tried socialism.
And when they actually tried it, everything fell apart. 🧵
Every campus economics debate ends the same way.
Someone drops the Sweden card: "High taxes, big welfare—and they're rich and happy!"
This myth has become the ultimate trump card against free market arguments. But what if the entire foundation of this story is backwards?
150 years ago, Sweden was dirt poor—poorer than Congo at the time.
Life expectancy was half the average of developing countries. Families mixed tree bark into bread to survive famine.
In Stockholm, 1,400 people crammed into buildings with only 200 one-room flats.
As Swedish author Vilhelm Moberg wrote: "Of all the wondrous adventures of the Swedish people, none is more remarkable than this: that it survived all of them."