I think you misunderstand how science works, governing agencies aren't the ones in control of literature and for there to be guidelines about how to do something there needs to be published evidence. That's the entire basis of evidence based medicine. That's not to say things won't be wrong sometimes, they definitely are but as long as pharmacists are keeping up with the state of the literature they'll provide better advice for the use of medications
Oh so you're telling me the FDA, CDC & NIH have nothing to do with the literature these people read?
Is that why the CDC & FDA were pushing vaccines (and still are) because they have no control over the guidelines right? Pfft.
Most pharmacology literature comes from places like pubmed & the NIH.
They just let tramadol slide right on by for 30 years, even though you could find literature from European countries describing it as an opioid that entire time. You know, because their "science" says it wasn't an opioid. So why did the US ignore all the other literature at the time? And how did they even come to the conclusion that it "wasn't an opioid" unless the "science" was fudged in the favor of the company trying to sell it & market it?
Same with oxycontin.
Oh remember VIOXX. And how they had to pull Darvocet off shelves due to finding out LATER that it had a cardiotoxic metabolite.
Oh aren't the makers of Suboxone also in trouble? Mostly for trying to squash competitors, but they also made up their own literature saying "the naloxone in suboxone makes it non-abusable!" which is clearly not true.
Drugs can't even be sold or marketed without a governing agency saying it's "ok" first. And if you think the pharma companies aren't in bed with the government, then I dunno what to tell you.
I'm well aware of "how science works". And if you think there's no corruption in the medical & pharmaceutical industry, then this will just fall on deaf ears. Today's "science" is whatever they want it to be, clearly.