Specifically, so-called "medicine."

There is only one proper set of roles for people in medicine and those consuming it as a service: Consultant and customer.

Why?

Because its your ass, not anyone else's, and nobody else can be held responsible for it other than by executing them when they get it wrong, which we're not willing to do.

Fixing this requires several changes in law and regulation.  The FDA's "enabling legislation" and its amendments (FDCA of 1906, Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951 and them the FDAMA of 1997) all are responsible for the interplay and segregation of drugs into two broad categories (OTC and Prescription) and, within the latter, there are scheduling issues in the Controlled Substances Act (which most people are aware of when it comes opioids and similar.)

In addition there is a body of civil legal constraint that has grown up around the current improper assignment of roles -- that is, physicians are assigned the duty of telling you what is good and what is bad but they bear only civil responsibility and only if they go outside of what some group calls "consensus."  The problems with this should be apparent but you can't fix one without the other as no physician is going to accept being a consultant with no authority and yet be saddled with legal liability, civil or otherwise.

As this has expanded beyond its original remit pharmacists have wound up with the capacity to refuse to fill a drug order they disagree with and this can be by extension; that is, it can be corporate policy of a pharmacy chain, not the pharmacists individual opinion, that they are then able to enforce.  Witness refusals to fill Ivermectin prescriptions written by a licensed doctor if, in the pharmacy's view, it was for a "wrong" purpose despite the fact that one prescription in five today is in fact "off-label" -- that is, for some purpose other than which the drug was originally approved.

This all has to change but it must change all at once, because again no physician is going to accept liability without some measure of control, so at the same time the control is removed so must the liability for other than affirmative acts.  That requires Congress to act; the Executive cannot fix this misallocation of roles and the deliberate perversion that came from it which is killing people by the hundreds of thousands a year.

We must keep, for example, liability for cutting off the wrong finger, toe, removing the wrong organ and similar acts.  In fact that should be in each and every case a criminal act, not merely a licensure or lawsuit matter, yet today it is not.

At the same time we the people must reclaim our agency, as adults, to direct our health status as we wish and accept the liability for same.  With the possible exception of habit-forming medications you must be free to both obtain them for no other consideration than money and to obtain, for no other consideration than money, any testing necessary and appropriate in your view to do so safely.  Further, irrespective of how you pay for it -- cash, credit or "insurance" -- the price charged by a given provider for a particular good or service must be the same.

This decoupling will instantly drive a stake through the heart of the physician monopoly networks and insurance companies that all conspire to tell everyone what must be done for any given person and condition.  It also will instantly stop the monetary and care blackmail which many have had experience with -- "take this set of shots or you're fired as patient", for example.  Allowing that and gatekeeping means collusion becomes force for you to do as some physician demands and that is already illegal under 15 USC Ch 1 as a force-tied sale so there is a huge cudgel (10 years in the slammer for your doctor) the Executive can wield to demand compliance.

Finally when it comes to various things sold under the FDA's licensing scheme the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act must be amended to require that all ingredients in a given medication must be individually, through controlled trial, certified as to their adverse event risk at the expected exposure over the person's lifetime and on the recommended schedule in combination with all other recommended things and, in that context, be fairly and fully disclosed.  For example we have "vaccines" on the market today that use "adjuvants", or "immune stimulating boosters" (many containing aluminum) that have never been individually certified as to their long-term effects in the amounts of typical exposure over a typical childhood.  That something is safe in very tiny quantities does not mean it is safe when you multiply that same exposure by five, ten or FIFTY.  The current schedule includes fifteen different vaccines and all of them require multiple doses.  The raw count of "number" of vaccines has doubled since the mid 1980s and today's schedule requires FIFTY individual shots.

DTaP, for example, is a series of five doses and HiB requires four.  The adjuvants in any of those may be safe in one dose but are they safe at nine times that total exposure and thirty to fifty times when all other recommended doses are added in?

Nobody knows because nobody has ever tested it.  Indeed a newborn now receives close to thirty shots by their second birthday; are these doses of adjuvants and other "stimulants" safe in a newborn to two year old not as one dose but at thirty times the individual dose?

One shot of alcohol, for example, has very little risk of harming you but two fifths of liquor, which is what 30 shots constitutes, is almost-certain to kill you if taken all at once.  Everyone knows that's true for booze so why isn't it imposed on the manufacturers for everything else?

Every physician will tell you that this is "safe" even thought there is zero evidence that at this dose rate it in fact is safe.  What they won't tell you is that the insurance companies bribe them for compliance on a bulk basis with their entire pediatric practice in the form of a kickback for each patient.  This, by the way, is an illegal tied sale and thus a felony as it implicates 15 USC Chapter 1; you must take something you don't want (the shots) to get something you do (a consultation with the pediatrician) and if you refuse you will be fired as a patient.  Everyone involved in that must be told that they stop it right now or they're all going to prison -- no exceptions, no excuses.

Trump has roughly 100 days to get the medical monster under control -- and certainly less than one year because at that point the midterm campaign will begin and if Congress goes Democrat he becomes an immediate lame duck, never mind that the mandate for all new Presidents expires about that time irrespective of the margin unless confirmed in the mid-terms, which there is no guarantee of.

The childhood stuff is just part of it, of course.  Seed oils are another huge issue and again as with all things its a matter of dose.  That it is safe to eat kernels of corn off a cob boiled in water doesn't mean extracting all the oil from a bushel of corn and consuming that in the space of one meal is safe.  Nobody does or could eat an entire bushel of corn at one sitting yet on the math one bushel is about 112 ears of corn which yields about 12 ounces of oil.  One ounce of corn oil (e.g. retained in fried food cooked in it) would require you eat nine ears of corn at one sitting to consume the same amount.  This of course is so wildly beyond the amount you could actually eat at once that there is no possible way to map the safety of one (eating corn) to the other (eating processed corn oil) via indirect means.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that if I consume seed oils in any amount I can see the adverse effects in my Garmin data immediately and that those effects are both dose-dependent and 100% reproduceable.  Nobody has characterized this yet today the technology to do so for you, personally, is a couple hundred bucks on the lower end (the "Instinct 2") and you can prove it to yourself any time you're willing to stop listening to the person in the white coat without challenge to their claims or evidence that they're not full of crap and confront the very real possibility that their only concern is money -- and if you slow-poison yourself and fuck up your metabolic processes they will make a lot more money.

You think not?  Watch this and then tell me that physicians and everyone else involved is interested in anything other than money.  After all giving you cancer makes them a lot of money; that you are likely to die is not of concern to them:

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is how far this perversion has gone -- and not just here in America either.  This has to be fixed right here, right now -- it is bankrupting the nation and it has to be taken care of in a way that cannot be evaded -- and if anyone tries to evade it they have to go to prison (or worse.)  The good news is that the law already exists on the books to hammer everyone in the medical field with if they try to refuse.

You may worship men and women in white coats but all they worship, on the data, is money and the more they can nod and "agree" that you should do something that over the longer term will screw you, provided you can't see the adverse event instantly and thus blame them for it the more money they make and the more-miserable and sick you are.

Medicine must be returned to 4%, more or less, of GDP from where it is today which is approximately 20%.  This can only be done by removing all the gatekeeping and other anti-competition "features" in the current system, most of which  can be done without new law as existing law, specifically 15 USC Chapter 1, is sufficient to do a great deal of it if you start arresting and prosecuting on the basis of criminal felonies, not fines.  But make no mistake -- some of this does require legislation and to do so is not going to occur without lots of screaming because along with one dollar in five in the economy comes about one job in five too.

Yes, those jobs will get relocated into other areas of the economy -- but not in a day or a week.  In addition the lobbyists will scream bloody murder and people will of course claim everyone will die without the existing structure.  The pushback to this has to be that they killed your grandmother and either they cut this shit out or you're going to make them stop and you don't much care what has to be done to accomplish that.

Folks, we're out of time on this.  We are now in a generally-rising rate environment and while there will be times that rates go up and down the trend is now upward and will be for the next two to three decades.  This in turn means that debt levels must decrease or the nation will be destroyed.  We can no longer talk about a five or ten year plan, which has been the talk for three decades and has been a lie as everyone can see -- rather, we must do it right now and whether we like it or not this is where the problem is within the federal budget today.