Although not as profitable as synthetic alternatives, natural food supplements are a profitable commodity. As such, you would think that all the profit-obsessed "Biggies" (Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Brother, etc.) would be embracing these products with all their hearts and souls (if they had a soul).
But, alas, if you've been keeping up with the natural food supplements industries, then you know that that isn't the case. In fact, it's no secret that, if the Biggies had their way, natural food supplements would mostly (if not completely) be removed from the shelves ASAP.
As to why they hate (and, no, the word "hate" isn't stretching how these people literally feel) natural supplements, well, the reasons are both highly complicated and, by the same token, terribly easy to explain.
What's a "Natural" Food Supplement?
Before going on with this presentation, perhaps it would be best if we can all be clear as to what constitutes a "natural food supplement." It does not--at least not in this context--refer to any of the magical concoctions, elixirs and potions (the majority of which are both synthetic and patentable) put out by the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, it is because natural supplements can't be patented that they are so childishly feared and opposed.
To be more specific, a natural food supplement usually refers to naturally-occurring (as opposed to being developed or re-invented in a lab) vitamins, minerals, and biological products (i.e., herbs, oils, seeds, etc.). Ironically, though, some food supplements, like the pharmaceutical potions and elixirs pushed to the mostly-clueless public, have been created in a lab.
But perhaps the most offensive (at least to the Biggies) quality that must be attributed to natural food supplements is that they can actually either prevent and/or cure many diseases and medical conditions. Of course, this presents a number of problems for the Biggies which can't be tolerated for obvious reasons.
Why the Medical Establishment Bad-Mouths Natural Food Supplements
Anyone that looks critically & open-mindedly at the medical establishment (ME) in the western world has to notice two important things: firstly, the ME is adamantly concerned with practicing "putting out fires" medicine, as opposed to preventive medicine; secondly, "cures," especially the kind with limited-profitability shelf lives, can throw unacceptable wrenches into profits-come-first conglomerate and government agendas.
Actually, doctors vehemently warn their patients to be wary of those "flagrantly unsafe mean ol' natural food supplements," knowing full well that most people will brainlessly heed such warnings since doctors always have their patients' best interests in mind (or so people have been brainwashed into believing) and since the mainstream media backs up such warnings with ubiquitous barrages of unsubstantiated but impressive-sounding "warning bells."
The fact that most doctors have very limited training in nutrition is irrelevant, of course, as is the fact that there usually are (or so the public is told) "very few scientific studies that prove that these supplements are safe, never mind effective." Well, even if that were true, it's only because the big corporations and the government refuse to fund such studies.
One of the things that is puzzling about their campaign to belittle natural food supplements, though, is that fact that they actually expect the public to believe that synthetic things are safer than natural things. Such campaigns wouldn't have been very effective, say, 100 years ago but, alas, it does seem as if people are today more comfortable swallowing or being injected with something synthetic than they are accepting the idea that natural supplements are not only safer but probably also more effective than these synthetic poisons.
Then there is the stark reality that the medical community doesn't want competition of any kind--not from chiropractors, not from acupuncturists, not from Asian medicine specialists, and, most important of all, not from nutritionists such as naturopaths, holistic physicians or even "true" integrative medicine specialists (who unlike most allopathic doctors are willing to consider other avenues of medicine, not just the very limited, militaristically-controlled, monopoly-based & profit-obsessed tools of conventional medicine).
What Are Big Pharma's Problems with Natural Food Supplements?
Interestingly, it's Big Pharma that most opposes the use of natural food supplements. If it were just a matter of profit concerns, Big Pharma could just get in bed with natural food supplement manufacturers and retailers and, by working out special quid-pro-quo arrangements, simply share proceeds from these lucrative products.
Actually, Big Pharma already does make money from many food supplements, especially the synthetic kinds they love so much to create and push on mostly clueless consumers.
Notwithstanding these proceeds, Big Pharma can't tolerate something which is antithetical to its main goals and agenda. To put it in clearer perspective, here is a short list of what Big Pharma sees wrong with natural food supplements:
1. They can potentially literally cure diseases Big Pharma doesn't want cures for. Can you imagine if, for example, nitrilosides (one of which is Vitamin B-17--better known as "laetrile") could indeed cure most (if not all) types of cancers? This natural substance is mostly missing from modern diets, coincidentally while at the same time cancer rates have skyrocketed. Is it another coincidence that where these nutrients are still found in the regular diets of certain indigenous people (like the Hunza, etc.) and people who have stayed away (like the Amish) from proper-nutrition-lacking modern diets, cancer rates are much better?
2. In general, they can't be patented. Things that can't be patented can't be monopolized and tightly controlled; more importantly, they aren't as potentially profitable as patentable products.
3. They can prevent many (if not most) diseases known to man, including communicable diseases (by greatly helping to keep healthy or strengthening the immune system). It's clear that conventional medicine isn't interested (except in stunt publicity campaigns) in preventing anything. If you prevent CVD, cancer and diabetes, what would they do without all those billions of "blood" dollars these diseases annually bring in?
Many experts assert that most of our chronic diseases (the ones killing and maiming many people these days) are the result of poor nutrition. Is it a mere coincidence that the diet of most people these days (especially in developed countries) is flagrantly deficient in the most basic nutrients?
4. They can make people independent and self-sufficient. If people could indeed keep themselves healthy (healthier) by simply eating smarter and more nutritionally, wouldn't that translate into their not depending so much on doctors, Big Pharma and the government? The last thing these power-hungry entities want are independent, self-reliant citizens!
5. They are antithetical to the teachings, goals and agenda of the allopathic medical community. Most people would have to get a much better understanding of why allopathic medicine steered away from natural substances as a means by which to keep people healthy (at least superficially). In the early part of the 20th century, some rich folks bought out or steadily gained control of medical schools, government agencies, the pharmaceutical industries and the mainstream media.
With these things in their pocket, they drove out of business most of the doctors still practicing homeopathic and naturopathic medicine. Using bribes, kick-backs and hush-hush "gifts," lobbyists for allopathic medicine and Big Pharma, with huge amounts of money backing this shameful initiative, also made sure that most politicians and heads of major government agencies were on their side.
6. They greatly defend and cogently explain the need for homeopathic and naturopathic medicine. If it could be established that natural supplements (especially vitamins and minerals) can indeed effectively treat and prevent many (if not most diseases), this would be a devastating blow to allopathic medicine, which clearly won the fight against homeopathic and naturopathic medicine through subterfuge, fraud, blatant lies, suppression of many truths, and, most of important of all, the backing of greedy, profit-over-public-health-obsessed psychopathic billionaires (e.g., the Rockefellers, the Carnegies).
Natural food supplements, if subjected to impartial, well-documented, long-as-well-as-short-term-benefits-rendered, well-funded and properly conducted (using humans, not just animals, controls and adequate-duration periods) experiments and clinical studies, would convincingly prove to the world that homeopathic and naturopathic medicine are indeed much superior to allopathic medicine.
Of course, allopathic medicine lobbyists and apologists, who are owned and controlled by the same people that own and control the mainstream media, would say that such studies and experiments have already been conducted but they, to put it bluntly, lie . . . and continue to lie in order to save their jobs and the money-obsessed industry to which they are, to put it mildly, "slaves."
7. They make most (if not all) of Big Pharma's magical elixirs, potions and concoctions obsolete and unnecessary. If scurvy hadn't already been proven to be a vitamin C deficiency disease, there is no question that allopathic medicine doctors today would be treating it with their usual hocus pocus concoctions--i.e., things that merely treat symptoms rather than cure the actual root/etiology of the disease or ailment. Other nutritional-deficiency diseases that Big Pharma (without the guidance of naturopathy) would have merely treated the symptoms of (rather than addressing the underlying "cause") include:
- Rickets (a vitamin D & calcium deficiency)
- Beriberi (a vitamin B1 or thiamine deficiency)
- Anemia (an iron deficiency)
- Nyctalopia or "night blindness" (a vitamin A deficiency)
- Pellagra (a vitamin B3 or niacin deficiency)
How many other diseases today haven't been recognized as nutritional deficiency-based? The sad fact is that no one knows the answer to that question. But one way that they can prevent the discovery of any such connections (even if legitimate) is by discouraging doctors from even considering such possibilities. Gee, could this be one of the main reasons doctors get such limited training in nutrition while in medical school?
As for the nutritional diseases alluded to here, these ailments were reluctantly identified as such--most probably by physicians with some homeopathic and naturopathic training--simply because the evidence presented in each case was too strong to ignore. But you are naive or historically-ignorant if you deny or don't want to be told that the allopathic medical system and Big Pharma don't want to recognize a connection between nutrition and diseases (especially in regard to the highly-profitable "Big Threes": CVD, cancer and diabetes).
8. They can make people more mentally alert, smarter and less capable of being fooled by the oppressive and suppressive governments and corporations now enslaving much of the world today. Some people may be surprised to learn that many so-called mental health problems (or the symptoms that lead to diagnoses of such) can be brought about because of vitamin or mineral deficiencies (and other chemical imbalances).
In fact, a good psychiatrist isn't supposed to treat mental disorders with things like psychotherapy, counseling or psychotropics/antipsychotics until he or she has ruled out flagrantly plausible "organic" etiologies--i.e., physiologically or anatomically-based medical problems.
Someone with undiagnosed hypo or hyperglycemia (a condition that would best be treated with insulin or some other glucose-management/controlling medicines), for example, might display symptoms of psychosis or mania. How many patients, however, end up in psychiatric wards because of symptoms emanating from a problem that would be more efficiently addressed in a regular medical ward?
Then again, some experts would posit that, if psychiatrists were more conscientious in this regard, in most cases they would find that a deficiency or toxicity issue is involved; as such, addressing the imbalance would be the appropriate cure. Patients behaving violently or delusionally, for example, may be suffering from a B12 deficiency or they may simply have been imbibing too much brominated vegetable oil (commonly found in sports drinks and in some carbonated drinks).
Following this logic, patients exhibiting mental health issues should be routinely subjected to micronutrient deficiency tests but, guess what, they rarely are. Why? "Because nutritional deficiencies are rarely the cause of mental health issues?" No, but rather, because conducting these tests would obviate the need for expensive drugs and treatments meant to treat the symptoms rather than address the real root of the problem.
People forget that psychiatrists, after all, are part of that corrupt, in-need-of-fixing allopathic medical system which refuses to recognize exposure to too many toxins (in our food, water & air) and poor nutrition as the root causes of many medical problems, including mental health ailments.
Their stance, by the way, isn't based on scientific posturing but, rather, on concerns for the loss of profit--i.e., the loss of profit resulting from not being able to prescribe pharmaceutical potions and elixirs that not only don't cure anyone but may in some cases make problems worse (such as by prescribing Ritalin to kids that are out of control not because of ADD or ADHD but because they are consuming too much refined sugar, fluoride, lead, mercury, etc., while at the same suffering from deficiencies in zinc, magnesium, vitamin D, amino acids, B12, etc.).
9. They present renewable resources that free people from the many mostly-poisonous synthetic products which not only don't cure disease but actually promote it or outright engender it. The thing with vitamins and minerals is that they have been readily available to the masses too easily and too generously--such as when people are allowed to eat a nutritious diet, something which today is too expensive and out of reach for many people. In order to eat a nutritious diet, for example, you would have to stay away from fast food, packaged/processed foods, irradiated foods, GMOs, etc.
Most people can't afford or don't know how to achieve these lofty goals. Natural food supplements represent a legitimate "Freedom Road" which the people in power badly want to close down permanently . . . hence their insane impetus to shove down the throats of the masses the development of GMOs, the spraying of tons of toxic pesticides, and the move to deny people organic foods (including animals not grown in factory farms or injected with steroids, antibiotics and growth hormones).
10. They counter the effects of the many depopulation tools that are now being used by most governments presently obsessed with the idea that the planet is overpopulated and badly in need of being re-structured (a fancy way of saying they want to murder millions of people using any means necessary--including such supposedly "harmless" things like vaccines, pesticides, processed foods, fluoridated water, CHEMtrail poisoned air, etc.). Natural food supplements without question can lengthen human longevity (by playing a protective role against ubiquitous toxins) for many people, especially those who have been subjected for too long to the many toxic foods being put out by Big Food.
In fact, some experts posit that the fact that most processed/packaged and most of the food served in restaurants today is blatantly unhealthy isn't a mere coincidence or an unforeseen repercussion of modernization but, rather, a well-played, deliberate initiative to make and keep people sick (in order to profit from their sickness); ultimately, though, the plan is to use unhealthy food as an effective depopulation tool.
The fact is that legitimately (for what the government and Big Food calls "healthy" is anything but) healthy food is becoming not only much more expensive but, in the not too-far-off future, blatantly inaccessible. If you walk into the average supermarket these days, in fact, you will see that most of what is sold to the public is unhealthy for a number of reasons.
When and if you find healthy food, it's expensive, if they have it at all. For example, it's almost impossible these days to buy food in most supermarkets that:
- doesn't contain GMOs,
- doesn't contain the obesity-inducing, highly-contaminated & neuro-toxic MSG,
- doesn't contain almost-impossible to digest so-called vegetable oils,
- hasn't been irradiated,
- doesn't contain BPA and other endocrine disruptors, including obesogens,
- isn't heavily dripping with pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and other deadly "ides,"
- hasn't been grown in mineral-depleted soil,
- hasn't been injected with hormones, antibiotics, & steroids,
- that hasn't been preserved or "enhanced" with the many cancer-causing preservatives, dyes, colors, flavors, etc.,
- and hasn't been subjected to chemical or bioengineering highly-experimental hocus pocus.
Regardless of whether you believe that natural food supplements can prevent or cure disease, the fact is that the lack of these things is integrally related to the escalating numbers of chronic diseases. The government, Big Food, the allopathic medical system, the mainstream media, academia and Big Pharma not only know that but they are counting on this fact in order to keep their fraud-filled, dishonest, disease-promoting, made-up-science and profit-motivated system going strong.
Like it or not, you are going to have to take sides on this "war" raging all around us. You can either keep voting for the status quo or you can, at last, try to fix things. For your part, make sure that you are getting the nutrients that your body needs. On a more grand scale, fight the powers that be every way you can. Oppose things like GMOs, the overuse of pesticides, food irradiation, water fluoridation, the excessive use of preservatives, etc.
Ultimately, it's up to us to decide what is best for us. Who would have thought that proper nutrition would ever become an issue for contention? But, alas, it has. Whose side will you take? The side of those who have no conscience and only care about profits?
Or the side of those of us who think that proper nutrition is an inalienable right--most ostensibly because proper nutrition can indeed not only prevent disease but actually cure it!