I see your point and I think I mostly agree with you.

However, I don't think crediting the FDA with all of the benefits of the rise of medicine as a scientific discipline through the late 19th and early 20th century is entirely warranted. Were snake oil salesmen sidelined because of the FDA or because doctor's started developing medicines that actually, and obviously, worked (such as aspirin, sulfa drugs, etc)?

The point is, without the FDA there would be no way to tell the difference between actually effective medicines and snake oil. Since snake oil is a lot cheaper to research and make, economics would dictate that it would come to dominate the market. And ordinary people, left to their own devices, are spectacularly bad at differentiating between the two. This is clearly demonstrated by the contemporary anti-vax movement (with its attendent "alternative" cures) and the alternative medicine movement, which is almost entirely snake oil.

I contend that without the FDA we would merely have different ways of telling the difference between actually effective medicines and snake oil (for example, the advice of a doctor). Indeed, how do we determine the difference in effectiveness between various FDA approved medicines today? Most medical research is not done at the behest of the FDA.

Clearly only the government is capable of scientific research. This is why we cannot tell the difference between different computer hardware, because there is no regulating government agency to do their magic for us.

And farming was made possible by the feudal system of government. Because otherwise, the farms would have been pillaged by wandering viking hordes.