Staff Reports
The latest from the FDA reveals yet another layer of absurdity that seems to snuff out the benefits of natural health products while lining the pockets of big pharmaceutical corporations. The Food and Drug Administration recently reiterated its requirement for dietary supplements to slap a disclaimer on their labels for any claims related to structure or function in the body. This little nugget of compliance reveals that, as per federal regulations, the claims made by manufacturers regarding vitamins, minerals, and other dietary ingredients are essentially ignored unless approved by the FDA—a body that appears more concerned with corporate interests than public health.
Take vitamin D, for example. If a supplement company wants to tout the positive effects of this nutrient on brain health, federal law mandates they remind consumers that the claim “has not been evaluated by the FDA.” It’s a classic case of bureaucratic overreach designed to delegitimize natural products that can’t be patented. The FDA could easily investigate these claims, but why would they? Investigating the efficacy of affordable supplements might expose the inconvenient truth that natural remedies could rival the pharmacological giants who fund the very regulators in charge.
The FDA always bans miraculous off-patent therapies and keeps incredibly dangerous drugs and food additives on the market—even if we beg them not to. @MidwesternDoc's brilliant article shows what the FDA stole from us and how to make America Healthy Againhttps://t.co/SKyxGBc9Fh
— Pierre Kory, MD MPA (@PierreKory) December 3, 2024
In the midst of a pandemic, the refusal of Anthony Fauci’s NIAID to promote affordable solutions, like vitamin D, is eyebrow-raising. Instead, the focus leaned heavily toward designer drugs—most notably the COVID-19 vaccine—while research supporting other options, including non-patented drugs like ivermectin, remained conspicuously absent from the public touts. For an agency that’s supposed to protect public health, their unwillingness to evaluate accessible supplements in favor of pricey pharmaceuticals raises some serious eyebrows.
Why wouldn’t the FDA use its extensive resources to conduct legitimate investigations into the safety and efficacy of supplements? Perhaps the agency prefers to keep the status quo, protecting the pharmaceutical industry’s profit margins while masking potentially effective alternatives. More than a simple oversight, this suggests a coordinated effort to silence competition against the big pharma cash cows.
Overall, the FDA’s dance with the pharmaceutical industry creates a concern that’s hard to shake for sensible citizens. When the agency’s announcements about dietary supplements seem more like fear-mongering than enlightening guidance, it’s no wonder that every reasonable person is raising an eyebrow. With powerful interests maneuvering behind the scenes, trusting the motives of those in charge becomes increasingly difficult, especially when federal regulators appear to work more for corporations than the very citizens they’re meant to serve.
