by Mike Adams

the Health Range

October 2011

from NaturalNews Website





Part 1

Recent Attack on Vitamins a Fabricated Scare Campaign

October 16, 2011

TIME, USA Today, MSNBC, NPR, CTV, the LA Times and numerous other mainstream media outlets have all been running a juvenile hoax over the last week. Through various misleading headlines, they're all claiming that vitamins might kill you.


Here are some of the headlines:

  • Study links vitamins to higher death rates in women - CTV

  • Study: Vitamins may increase death risk in older women - USA Today

  • We've Been Wasting a Ton of Money on Vitamins and Dietary Supplements - TIME

  • Some common vitamin supplements could increase death risk - MSNBC

  • Dietary supplements risky for older women, study finds - LA Times

  • Supplements Look Risky In Study Of Older Women - NPR

  • Vitamins do more harm than good, new suggest says -

  • Women Who Take Vitamin Supplements May Have Increased Death Risk - Huffington Post

There are literally hundreds of headlines from mainstream news sources that essentially say the same thing.

There's only one problem with all this: The whole thing is a HOAX! And NaturalNews is stepping forward to expose this hoax using data from the published study itself.


Exposed - A total mainstream media hoax

Caught yet again, the mainstream media has been exposed pulling off a juvenile, simplistic hoax that attempts to scare people away from good nutrition.


To accomplish this hoax, they took a poorly-constructed "scientific" study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine which was itself based on erroneous conclusions (see below) and then blatantly misreported what the study data actually showed.

This journal is owned, not surprisingly, by the American Medical Association (AMA), which has a long and sordid history of openly attacking vitamins and nutrition, even to the point of committing crimes that violate federal law.


Remember, the AMA has been found guilty of conspiracy in federal courts.

All this is yet another case of quack journalism on the part of the mainstream media, which is largely funded by pharmaceutical interests, of course. They never miss an opportunity to try to attack vitamins and dietary supplements, even if it means revealing they are total Big Pharma "presstitutes" who pretend to be real journalists.

But don't take my word for it: Let's do something the mainstream media presstitutes never do and actually look at the study data for a change!


What the study actually reveals

The study is entitled "Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women" - Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(18):1625-1633

The study claims to have reviewed the vitamin and mineral supplement use in 38,772 older women by mailing them 3 surveys over 18 years, asking them to recall what vitamins and minerals they were taking.

So hold the presses. This is a "survey study" - or what's commonly called an "observational study" - which are notoriously inaccurate to begin with.


As Dr. David Brownstein told me in a groundbreaking InfoWars Nightly News interview,

"This study says absolutely nothing about vitamins," Dr. Brownstein said. "If this study was done in reverse, where vitamins were shown to be effective, no journal would have printed this study because it was so poorly done."

Watch the interview yourself:



The part with Dr. Brownstein begins at roughly 6:00...




Study data were ALTERED!

One of the most glaring total fabrications in this particular study is the alteration of the raw data using statistical voodoo.


If you go to Table 2 (below) of the study (page 4 of the study PDF), it shows a "Hazard Ratio" number associated with each of the nutrients covered in the study, such as vitamin D, vitamin D, calcium, copper, iron, and so on.



There's also a number associated with "multivitamin."

With these numbers, a 1.0 means "neutral" or "no increase in mortality." A number below 1.0 - such as 0.92 - means a reduction in mortality. For example, 0.92 would mean an 8% reduction in mortality associated with that particular vitamin.

A number higher than 1.0 means an "increase" in mortality. So something like 1.15 would mean a 15% increase in total mortality.

So what do these numbers really say?

  • Vitamin B complex was associated with a 7% reduction in mortality

  • Vitamin C was associated with a 4% reduction in mortality

  • Vitamin D was associated with an 8% reduction in mortality

  • Magnesium was associated with a 3% reduction in mortality

  • Selenium was associated with a 3% reduction in mortality

  • Zinc was associated with a 3% reduction in mortality

I bet you didn't read that in the mainstream media, huh? That's because they never reported these numbers! Once again, they just cherry picked whatever scary data they wanted to show you while ignoring the rest.

On the negative side of the findings:

  • Folic acid was associated with a 9% increase in mortality

  • Copper was associated with a 31% increase in mortality

"Multivitamins," which the mainstream media viciously attacked with their lying whore headlines, were associated with - guess what? - only a two percent increase in mortality.


Voodoo statistics used to alter the outcome

But wait! In this study, they didn't use the actual survey results as their concluding data. Nope, they began to massage the data using a voodoo formula that they came up with after the fact in an effort to make the data "fit the curve" they wanted.

By their own admission, they first adjusted all the numbers for "age, educational level, place of residence, diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), waist to hip ratio, hormone replacement therapy, physical activity, smoking status, and intake of energy."

But hold on a second: They're saying that a person with diabetes has a higher risk of death, so if that person died, they wouldn't "count it" as much as a healthy person dying, right? But they utterly failed to take into account the fact that nutrients can reverse diabetes and make diabetes symptoms completely disappear.


Those would be nutrients like vitamin D, magnesium and vitamin C, all of which were covered in the study.


So if a woman in the study started out as diabetic, and then she took nutrients that helped her reverse diabetes, and then she later died as a non-diabetic but still earlier than a person who had been healthy her whole life, then this would count as a more strongly weighted "penalty" against vitamins in the data!

The same is true with high blood pressure. You see, the statistical voodoo that took place in this study was based on the completely false belief by western research quacks that vitamins do not prevent, cure or reverse disease. So they failed to account for that action in their own data.

Thus, just on that point alone, this study is a complete, juvenile joke! It wouldn't even earn a "C" on a high school science project, and yet it seems like it was good enough for the Archives of Internal Medicine, which receives millions of dollars in advertising from drug companies.

But wait... there's more!


The data were altered a second time!

Not content to massage the data just once, these study authors went even further and actually changed all the results a second time!


This was done through yet another "multivariable adjustment" in which the authors:

"...adjusted for age; educational level; place of residence; diabetes mellitus; high blood pressure; body mass index; waist to hip ratio; hormone replacement therapy; physical activity; smoking status; and intake of energy, alcohol, saturated fatty acids, whole grain products, fruits, and vegetables."

Okay, wow, so they adjusted for intake of fruits and vegetables, too?


This means a person who ate more fruits and vegetables was assumed to be more healthy, and therefore whatever age they died at was weighed toward (blamed on) other factors such as the vitamins they were taking!

The fact is, the weight factors in all these voodoo adjustments were totally made up by the study authors. I have no doubt they sat there with a large Excel spreadsheet and just ran thousands of different combinations of assumptions and weighs - fudging their data - until they managed to produce the results they wanted.

And what results were that? Oh my goodness, can you believe it? Vitamins might kill you!

Yep, by massaging the data, factoring in their own made-up assumptions, fudging the weights and ignoring correlations between nutrition and disease prevention, these researchers managed to eliminate all the reduction of mortality risk that was demonstrated by nutrients like vitamin D, while simultaneously making nutrients like copper look like they were the next worst thing to poison (a 45% increased risk in mortality).

All this really amounts to little more than mental masturbation by a circle jerk of scientists who set out to "prove" vitamins were bad from the get-go. They actually had to alter the data TWICE to get the results they wanted.

And then, just to throw some icing on the cake, they wrap all this scientific fraud in their language of statistical significance, "multivariable adjusted models" and other technical jargon that they hope will sufficiently shroud the reality that this study is complete scientific fraud.

If Dr. Andrew Wakefield had used this massaging of the data to show that vaccines caused autism, he would have been laughed off the stage, stripped of his medical license, persecuted by the media and declared a quack by the rest of the medical community.


But of course, when a bunch of doctors writing for the AMA use this obvious scientific fraud to conclude that "vitamins might kill you," suddenly it's perfectly okay with the entire scientific community, the whore media, the corrupt medical journals and of course all the idiotic doctors who still ridiculously believe that supplemental nutrition has no role to play in human health.


Massive conflicts of interest - but they're never disclosed or reported

As Dr. Brownstein explained earlier, if this study had shown vitamins to be effective at reducing mortality, doctors and critics would have bashed it as being total "quack science."


But because they could use the study to try to discredit vitamins, mainstream media presstitutes have decided it's good enough to quote in their newspapers, magazines and news programs.

The second huge point in all this that nobody bothered to mention is that the Archives of Internal Medicine is funded by drug company advertising, creating an immediate and obvious conflict of interest which was never disclosed in the publication of the study.


Gee, do you think a drug company rag that makes its money from pharmaceutical advertisements might have a financial incentive to destroy the reputation of the vitamins that often compete with pharmaceuticals? Really? You think so?

TIME didn't bother to mention this to their readers. Neither did USA Today, or MSNBC, or anyone in the mainstream who reported on this.


Of course, if a study touting the benefits of vitamins had appeared in a journal funded by vitamin companies, they would have attacked the whole thing as an outrageous conflict of interest! (You got to love the selective logic of these presstitutes who only cherry pick the selected tidbits they want you to read...)


No differentiation between synthetic versus natural vitamins

Further discrediting the conclusions of this study, it did not differentiate between synthetic vitamins and natural vitamins.


So for all we know, these older women in the study could be taking bottom-of-the-barrel vitamins found at common retailers like Wal-Mart and grocery stores. These are cheap multivitamin brands made with synthetic chemicals that claim to be vitamins but really aren't. Most of those vitamins are made by pharmaceutical companies!


And I would have to agree that taking synthetic vitamin E is very, very bad for your health, just like taking synthetic medications is bad, too.

By avoiding any distinction between synthetic versus natural vitamins, the study authors knew that any negative results would immediately be used to discredit ALL vitamins. This, of course, was done by design. Virtually all the conventional medical studies that look at vitamins use this same tactic, refusing to make any distinction between natural nutrition versus synthetic vitamins, which are really just DRUGS given vitamin "names."

In other words, if you believe this study found something negative about vitamins, the reality of the situation is that most of these women were probably taking drugs given the names of vitamins and then packaged into "one-a-day" multivitamin formats that, are toxic to the human body in the first place.

You see, in western quack science, there is no distinction between a nutrient created in the lab versus a nutrient that comes from nature.


But in nature, nutrients are different!


Vitamin C, for example, doesn't exist in isolation in nature; it's always found with other supporting antioxidants and phytonutrients. So taking vitamin C from a plant-based source (camu camu, for example) is qualitatively different from taking vitamin C created in a lab (ascorbic acid). Today's conventional quack scientists and doctors are too ignorant about nutrition to know the difference (that's a fact), so they make no distinction in their research studies, either.

Heck, today's quack medical researchers and doctors don't even recognize any difference between living foods and dead foods! To them, it's all the same: A dead food has the same minerals and calories and vitamins as a living food, they claim.


They're dead wrong about that, of course - which is why so many doctors are just plain DEAD in the first place - as living foods have a quality that goes beyond the detection of their crude laboratory tests.


Check out the rebuttal against the vitamin scare hoax as published by the Life Extension Foundation.







Part 2
Vitamins Are Deadly?
October 17, 2011

Yesterday (above report), we published a groundbreaking article exposing the total media hoax that has been running in the mainstream media over the past week or so.


The hoax involved a fraudulent study using altered data which claimed to show that "vitamins are deadly!".


But the actual data from the study didn't reach that conclusion at all, and the mainstream media reporting on this was little more than a collection of outright lies and willfully engineered disinformation.

Today we continue with part two of exposing this malicious media hoax, which was designed (of course) to scare people away from taking vitamins while at the same time feeding them propaganda stories that encourage everyone to

According to the mainstream media, you see, poisons are good for you, but nutrition is deadly.

Minerals, they claim, might kill you. But being injected with a vaccine using aluminum adjuvants and mercury preservatives is actually GOOD for you, they insist!


Here's the real truth

Vitamins won't kill you, but pharmaceuticals kill 100,000 Americans a year (or more)

Of course, the biggest hoax in all this is that there has never been a single confirmed case of a vitamin killing anyone, and yet FDA-approved pharmaceuticals kill at least 100,000 Americans every year!

Does the mainstream media report on all the dead Americans killed by deadly medications? Of course not.

  • Never mind that the number of Americans killed by medications dwarfs the total body count from all acts of alleged terrorism in the history of our nation.

  • Never mind that twice as many Americans die each year from FDA-approved pharmaceuticals as died in the entire Vietnam War.

  • Never mind that even the FDA's own top scientist - Dr. David Graham - blew the whistle on the total corruption of science within the FDA, revealing how just one drug (Vioxx) was proven to cause over 60,000 heart attacks, many of which killed people.

Does the mainstream media report on the hundreds of Americans who die every day in America from pharmaceuticals? Not a chance.


Instead, they try to focus people on the false idea that "vitamins will kill you," even though there isn't a shred of reliable evidence to support the idea that a single death has ever been caused by a vitamin (even a synthetic vitamin).

The media hoax, you see, is found not only in the lies they tell you, but also in the truths they refuse to tell you.

This whole story about vitamins being dangerous is a sleight-of-press distraction to take your focus away from the things that are really killing people (vaccines, medications, chemotherapy) and try to make you focus on the things that aren't (vitamins and dietary supplements).


It's classic CIA-style social engineering, brought to you by the mainstream media which has become,

"the least trusted news source on the planet."


Research scientists just invent whatever data they want

...and it routinely gets published in "scientific" medical journals

There's something rather hilarious and pathetic about the drug-pushing, vaccine-pimping "scientists" that dominate (quack) medicine today: They don't care how sloppy or fraudulent the science really is as long as it's in their favor.

Heck, when they don't get the data they want from conducting real science, they just invent whatever data they want!


This is what Dr. Scott Reuben did - a key researcher for Pfizer and Merck. He literally just dreamed up whatever data he wanted and authored over twenty studies which were published in mainstream medical journals - even though they were all complete fraud!

These were then cited by literally thousands of other research papers, many of which were also fraudulent themselves.


This is how Big Pharma's medical system works:

One round of fraudulent studies cites another round of fraudulent studies until they've built up something that appears to be a well-referenced body of research but which is actually based entirely on fabricated junk science.

Ah, but who cares? Who cares that the research is complete fraud?


As long as the media can scare people away from vitamins, that's what really counts, you see. They don't care that it's all a complete hoax because they know that 99% of their readers will never check the facts for themselves.


Most people will just swallow whatever media lies are shoved at them, without even a hint of skepticism.


Facts are stubborn things

After all, who cares about facts anymore?


Facts are inconvenient when you're trying to convince the world population to stay sick and diseased all the time so you can sell them more of your patented, monopoly-priced prescription poisons.

They can't just come right out and tell the truth, you see - that would destroy the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, they have to fabricate a whole system of lies which are then backed up by the criminal, repugnant FDA and then parroted in the mindless mainstream media.

Here's another inconvenient fact that nobody in the mainstream whore media bothered to tell you:

FACT: The sample size of the women taking copper in this study was a grand total of: 24 people by the end of the study.

Twenty-four people? Yeah, that's reported in table 4 on page six of the study:

There were 30 women taking copper in 1986 when the study began.


This increased to 57 women in 1997, then decreased to 24 women in 2004 - 2008, when the study ended. So from 24 women, and through the voodoo manipulation of the data, this study concludes that copper has a 50% increase in mortality.

Wow, that's some pretty stunning science fraud. Sort of idiotic, actually.


It would earn you an "F" in high school science class if you tried to pull this off. Yet the mainstream media reports this as if it were rock-solid science. In doing so, all they do is just embarrass themselves and show what science morons their own reporters still are.

Most of these newspapers and newsstand magazines you see claiming to cover the news should actually be filed in the "fiction" category at booksellers.


The complete scientific ignorance of mainstream journalists

Sometimes I wonder what it takes to be a corporate-controlled journalist these days.


First, it requires that you be a complete moron on topics such as biochemistry, food, agriculture, nutrition, basic science, the environment, economics, the money supply and of course world history. It's almost as if mainstream media journalists are comprised of people who have been voluntarily lobotomized so that they now "qualify" to write for the dumbed-down media.

More importantly, being a mainstream media "whore" journalist requires that you get really, really comfortable telling lies for your corporate masters.


Whatever you're told to write, you just write it, even if you know it's a total lie. And if you're directed to destroy somebody in an interview - like Anderson Cooper tried to do with Dr. Wakefield - you just do it on command like a good little Nazi soldier.

That's why, with very few exceptions,

  • the Anderson Coopers

  • the Bill O'Reillys

  • the AP and Reuters reporters that dominate the old dinosaur media, are really just social engineers who are being used as pawns in a system of total corporate disinformation designed to keep you sick, diseased and enslaved to a medical monopoly which actually goes out of its way to destroy nutritional knowledge and therefore promote nutritional illiteracy.

There's no other word for it:

Mainstream media journalists are nutritionally illiterate.

So are nearly all mainstream doctors. So are most conventional scientists. So are most people!


The nutritional knowledge which could have been used to prevent probably 80% of all chronic, degenerative disease in America has been censored, suppressed, shuttered or destroyed by the medical establishment working in cahoots with the FDA and the mainstream media.


They have actually gone out of their way to make sure everybody "stays stupid" when it comes to vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals.


Your vaccine IS your multivitamin, yo!

The whole point of this is to keep people enslaved in a system of medical domination where they think of "nutrients" as being things they are found in prescription medications.


Some people think blood-thinning drugs are "nutrients," and they pop their medications as if they were candy, sometimes taking a dozen or more dangerous prescription medications every single day. This is what the conventional medical industry wants you to think of as "nutrition."

Vaccines are nutrition, too, didn't you know? You are incomplete without them!


If you want to be whole, you must allow yourself to be repeatedly injected with all kinds of vaccines. At least that's what the medical establishment wants you to believe. It's all, of course, a complete pack of lies.

Nutrition doesn't come from your doctor. Your doctor is most likely a complete and total moron when it comes to nutrition. That's why he's more likely to die before you do, because when he gets sick, he won't take vitamin D and eat natural sources of vitamin C and zinc to boost immune function.


No, he's more likely to swallow his own antibiotics, then develop a superbug infection in his lungs or gut, and then die from pneumonia or cancer while being pumped full of poisons by his own colleagues who have also been totally brainwashed into thinking prescription drugs are nutrients.

Dead doctors don't lie. And they're dying in record numbers these days because they keep taking their own deadly medicines while avoiding anything that smacks of "holistic" nutrition or the healing arts.

NaturalNews readers get all that. They really get it. That's why they drink superfood smoothies, take natural dietary supplements and don't watch mainstream television news on the idiot box.


And that's why NaturalNews readers will outlive all the dumbed-down consumers of mainstream television - people who, like a character from the movie Idiocracy, say,

"Vitamins will kill me? OW my balls!".



Vitamins will kill you, but vaccines are good nutrition!

As you ponder all this, keep in mind that the mainstream media is the same wretched group of retreads who tell you that vaccines are good for you!

Oh yeah, here's the scoop: Vitamins just might kill you, so don't take those. But vaccines could save your life! So get injected with those as much as possible! (Seriously...)

And GMOs are good for you too, uh-huh. And chemotherapy is good, too. You should get both your breasts cut off even if you don't have breast cancer, the LA Times reported. That's how you "prevent" breast cancer, apparently.

Perhaps all these journalists should take their own advice and prevent brain cancer by cutting off their own heads? It would not materially affect the quality of their reporting, it seems. Even a machine can hit copy and paste on a pharma-funded press release.


Who needs humans to do it if there's no thinking involved?


The mainstream media thinks all their readers are stupid

It's true: The MSM (mainstream media) thinks their readers are stupid.


And to some extent, they are correct because most of the intelligent people in the world have stopped reading or watching the mainstream media as a source of information. They've realized they are constantly being lied to by media institutions which are, themselves, funded in large part by pharmaceutical advertising and the financial interests of the corporate global elite.

Did you ever wonder why the media's coverage of Fukushima was such a downplay of the actual events that took place there?


One reason is because General Electric built the Fukushima nuclear power plants while also owning key mainstream media disinfo outlets such as NBC, CNBC and MSNBC.

Do you really think these media giants which receive hundreds of millions of dollars a year in advertising revenue from drug companies will ever tell the truth about how nutrition can eliminate your need for pharmaceuticals?


Of course not!


How the drug companies bought off the media

Look at this below charts of the rise in direct-to-consumer drug advertising expenditures:



The Congressional Budget Office has even done research on the astonishing financial ties between the drug companies and the mainstream media.


Here's what they concluded (Promotional Spending for Prescription Drugs):

"Pharmaceutical manufacturers spent at least $20.5 billion on promotional activities in 2008.3 Detailing to physicians, nurse practitioners, and physicians’ assistants cost $12 billion, accounting for more than half of that promotional spending (see Figure 1). Drug companies spent another $3.4 billion sponsoring professional meetings and events and about $0.4 billion placing advertisements in professional journals.


Pharmaceutical manufacturers spent the rest of their promotional budgets, $4.7 billion in 2008, on direct-to-consumer advertising.


To place those figures in context, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) estimated that, among its members, domestic sales of pharmaceuticals and medicines totaled $189 billion in 2008 and domestic spending on research and development totaled $38 billion."

Did you catch that? $4.7 billion in advertising through the mainstream media... and that was in 2008 (it's much larger now).


This also reveals that drug companies spent,

  • $12 billion bribing doctors

  • $3.4 billion running doctor "education camps" that promote more drugs

  • $400 million corrupting medical journals

So we're supposed to believe that none of this money has any influence on the Archives of Internal Medicine nor the mainstream media outlets which ran this media hoax that "vitamin will kill you?"




The media fails to disclose its own financial ties to drug interests

How could any mainstream media journalist miss all this? Have they forgotten how to read? Or even how to think?


Reporting on this vitamin study while failing to mention all the financial ties between the drug industry and the mainstream media itself is sort of like reporting on the Titanic's maiden voyage across the Atlantic but failing to mention it sank.

The media cover-up IS the story here! The financial corruption of the medical journals IS the story!


The hoaxing of the population with a completely fabricated story based on quack science is actually one of the biggest stories of the year. And yet, obviously no one in the mainstream media will report a story based on an investigation of the total financial corruption of the mainstream media itself.


That's why people read alternative news sources like NaturalNews. Because they know we haven't been bought off by some big corporate interests. You will never see Pfizer being a sponsor of NaturalNews, for example. Nor some GMO company or anyone else pushing poison. (If you do see a Google ad on our site from a pharma company, let us know and we'll ban them. We've already banned hundreds...)

Plus, we're not corporate whores, thank goodness.


That sounds like a tiring job, just churning out total disinformation for the elite corporate interests during the day, and then going home at night, looking in the mirror and hating your life.


But that's what thousands of mainstream media journalists do every single day:

They LIE to their readers to collect a paycheck, and then they go home and wonder why they even bothered to get a degree in journalism in the first place, since virtually nobody in the whore media bothers to practice real journalism anymore.

It's kind of a cushy job, actually:

 Take press releases from the White House, drug companies or medical journals, rewrite a sentence or two, slap your name on it, and you've "written" your story for the day! No research (or thinking) is even necessary. No need to make a single phone call, and there's no need to check facts since they've already been provided to you by the corporate media relations whores who also push lies for a paycheck.

"Reporting the news" in the mainstream media is little more than taking corporate globalist press releases and repackaging them as "news" without engaging in any fact checking or independent research whatsoever.


It's an embarrassment to the whole field of journalism, actually.


Want real journalism? Get it from alternative news sources

Reporting the real news takes far more effort than just copying and pasting press releases or White House propaganda. For starters, we have to think for ourselves.


And when we report the news, we don't use teleprompters and we don't read scripts. Watch InfoWars Nightly News sometime and you'll notice that none of us are reading from teleprompters. We don't have scripts. We analyze current events in real time, in a LIVE video studio, with no scripts, no makeup, no special wardrobe and no big corporate sponsors.


That's real journalism, folks. Here's a video of me hosting it recently (and yeah, I mess up sometimes, because I'm not reading a teleprompter).

Alex Jones, Aaron Dykes and others also host InfoWars Nightly News, where you'll learn the hard-hitting truth about all kinds of subjects, from health freedom and vaccines to government corruption and the push for war.

We don't have the super slick graphics, the big corporate sponsors, nor the wink and the nod from government "authorities." Instead, we have independent, intelligent analysis of events that really matter.

That's something you just can't get anymore from USA Today, TIME, the LA Times, the NY Times or any other mainstream media outlet. They simply can't afford to report the truth - it would get their ad revenues and put them out of business.

Think about that for a second, and realize that every major player in the entire mainstream media only exists because they continue to serve a strategic role in pushing propaganda for powerful corporations or political interests. There is no more "news" in the news. It's all just a tapestry of lies and half-truths woven from the never-ending stream of disinformation that keeps the drug companies raking in profits from preventable degenerative disease.

The mainstream media, ultimately, doesn't want you to be informed. They want you to be obedient.