Chapter 6: From Pills to Profits: Unseen Forces of Medicinal Control

Whether watching TV, scrolling social media, or visiting a doctor, unseen algorithms are at work—guiding not only what you see but also the treatments you receive. In Big Pharma’s hands, these algorithms become tools of control, steering drug ads, suggesting prescriptions, and influencing medical advice.

Healthcare, once centered on personalized care, is now driven by data, allowing pharmaceutical companies to shape medical decisions at their core. Algorithms in electronic health records often prioritize costly, patented drugs over affordable, natural treatments, nudging providers toward pharmaceutical solutions that sustain Big Pharma’s profits.

Meanwhile, advertising algorithms target consumers directly, using personal data to push pharmaceutical ads on social media and streaming platforms. Medications like antidepressants and weight-loss drugs are marketed as primary health solutions, bypassing providers altogether.

Beyond marketing, algorithms also influence regulatory bodies like the FDA, which now uses them to expedite drug approvals. This focus on speed can overlook safety, with side effects often emerging years later. In this way, algorithms shape our medical landscape, frequently prioritizing profits over patient well-being.

Although, the reach of algorithms extends beyond technology; societal algorithms influence the medical field much like other industries, all interwoven by design. In this chapter, we’ll peel back the layers of the medical industry—examining its history, foundational philosophies, and the forces that shape it today. We’ll delve into the rise of pharmaceutical dominance, the marginalization of natural therapies, and the pervasive focus on treating symptoms rather than curing illness.

As we explore, we’ll uncover the hidden structures that guide patient care, often prioritizing profits over people. From the infiltration of regulatory bodies to the manipulation of medical education, we’ll expose how corporate interests have redefined the standards of care. This journey will reveal the tangled web of profit-driven motives and the societal algorithms that shape the very nature of healthcare, leaving true healing by the wayside. Prepare to dissect the medical field layer by layer, uncovering the deeper forces at play.

Big Pharma’s Grip: Manipulating Media and Medicine Through Financial Influence

Big Pharma’s influence reaches far beyond the confines of healthcare—it has infiltrated the media, crafting a powerful network that sustains and reinforces its dominance. In the United States, where direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising is legal, our TVs, radios, and social media feeds are inundated with drug promotions. From antidepressants to weight-loss medications, these ads shape public perception, embedding the belief that pharmaceuticals are the primary—and often only—solution to health problems. In reality, this could not be further from the truth.

Unlike many other countries where pharmaceutical advertising is banned, in the U.S., pharmaceutical companies are the largest contributors to media ad revenue, pouring billions into promoting their products. In 2022 alone, they spent over $6 billion on TV ads, keeping networks afloat and binding them to their most profitable client. Without Big Pharma’s financial backing, the “Big Six” corporations might collapse, as the medical industry is their backbone. These corporations control the narrative with the steady flow of pharmaceutical dollars, saturating their channels with drug ads and filtering out critical perspectives on health and medication.

This financial relationship transforms media companies into dependent partners, reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. The consequence? A muted landscape, where critical reporting on issues like over-medication, drug dependency, and dangerous side effects is often sidelined. Instead, drug ads saturate the airwaves, ensuring that the public remains constantly exposed to pharmaceutical solutions.

Money also plays a significant role in determining which drugs doctors prescribe, often placing pharmaceutical interests ahead of patient needs. Pharmaceutical companies deploy sales representatives to visit doctors’ offices, offering financial incentives, free samples, and even paid speaking engagements to promote their latest medications. This creates a subtle but powerful influence, where doctors may feel compelled to favor the drugs they’ve been encouraged to prescribe—often the newest and most expensive options.

This financial relationship shifts the focus from patient-centered care to profit-driven decision-making, reinforcing a cycle where medication becomes the default answer, regardless of other potential treatments.

In this way, Big Pharma’s financial power over both media and medical practices ensures that the narrative of pharmaceutical dominance goes unchallenged, maintaining their grip on public perception, policy, and health outcomes. By controlling the flow of information and influencing prescribing habits, Big Pharma keeps the public locked into a cycle of over-medication, with zero scrutiny of long-term consequences and anyone who challenges these forces, are labeled as crazy. As we dive deeper, you will see exactly why we should all be questioning the efficiency and effectiveness of each of these drugs.

Rockefeller’s Influence: From Healing to Synthetic Medicine

Here we encounter our friend once again—a recurring figure in this story. The transformation of modern medicine can also be traced back to John D. Rockefeller. With his oil empire producing vast petroleum byproducts, Rockefeller seized the opportunity to repurposed these chemical waste materials for use in medicine. At that time, healthcare mainly relied on holistic practices like herbalism and homeopathy, focused on long-term healing and balance. However, Rockefeller aimed to reshape the system, much like he did with education, steering it toward synthetic, petroleum-based drugs.

Using his immense wealth, Rockefeller funded medical schools and research centers that prioritized chemical treatments over natural therapies. The 1910 Flexner Report, which he sponsored, led to the decline of alternative approaches and firmly steered the medical field toward pharmaceuticals. Take levothyroxine, a drug prescribed for hypothyroidism, as an example. It’s the synthetic version of the amino acid L-Tyrosine. Instead of addressing this deficiency with a natural, essential protein, patients are given a lab-created synthetic substitute, often overlooking the potential for dietary changes to correct the issue.

The petroleum or oil industry is the backbone of modern science. We wonder why we have such a hard time moving away from its control of our world, it drives our cars, or medicine, and as you will soon learn, even our financial system. This shift established a healthcare model focused on treating symptoms with synthetic drugs rather than addressing root causes—an essential component in the algorithm of control that continues to drive profits to this day.

How Big Pharma Gained Public Trust: Antibiotics and Birth Control

After World War II, Big Pharma gained public trust largely through the success of antibiotics, particularly penicillin, which saved countless lives on and off the battlefield. These “miracle drugs” created confidence in the pharmaceutical industry, seen as capable of conquering deadly infections. Antibiotics’ effectiveness in treating diseases like pneumonia, syphilis, and tuberculosis further cemented public and medical faith in pharmaceuticals.

Government-backed mass production of antibiotics during the war solidified the industry’s role in national security and public health. This post-war pharmaceutical boom led to rapid drug development for various ailments, positioning medicine and science as cornerstones of modern life.

With trust firmly established, Big Pharma continued to introduce new treatments. By the 1950s and 1960s, marketing efforts framed drugs as essential to our well-being. Believing that doctors and scientists knew best, people unwittingly allowed pharmaceutical companies to swoop in and take what they wanted: their money.

By the 1960s, the public was fully primed to embrace any new drug that came their way. Birth control pills were hailed as the perfect solution—a groundbreaking medical breakthrough.

Little did they know, synthetic hormones disrupt insulin sensitivity and metabolism, contributing to the rise of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and obesity. The risks were minimized, and birth control became normalized, never fully addressing its lasting impact on health.

This marked a turning point in the rise of chronic diseases. What began as a tool for reproductive autonomy became a gateway to widespread health issues. The reliance on pharmaceuticals and the introduction of synthetic hormones significantly contributed to a society where chronic conditions became increasingly prevalent. To make matters worse, this trend continues today, with the public largely unaware of the potential long-term risks associated with synthetic hormones.

Nutritional Education: The Missing Link in Medical Training

One of the most shocking gaps in modern healthcare is the lack of nutritional education for doctors. U.S. physicians receive less than 25 hours of nutrition training throughout their education, leaving them unprepared to address the impact of diet on chronic illness. Instead of focusing on the root causes of diseases like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, the medical system turns to pharmaceuticals.

This educational gap is by design. It ensures that quick-fix medications dominate treatment, keeping patients in a cycle of dependency on drugs rather than exploring food and lifestyle changes that could prevent or reverse illness. By sidelining nutrition, the algorithm prioritizes pharmaceutical solutions, perpetuating a healthcare system where illness fuels corporate profits.

The irony is that many of these diseases don’t require medication at all—just lifestyle changes. Often, the root causes lie in dietary imbalances, like consuming too much of certain foods or not enough of others. However, as we’ve discussed, the public is already deeply misled by our institutions’ own health guidelines, which only push us further into dependency on pharmaceuticals. In this profit-driven capitalist society, we become the victims, funneled into a system where medication is seen as the solution, while the true causes remain unaddressed.

The indoctrination of doctors is a major issue rife with fallacies. In fact, a significant portion of their training centers not on understanding the root causes of health problems but on clinical operations and good bedside manner. Holistic or natural remedies are almost entirely absent from the curriculum. Regardless of their field of study. Without a strong foundation in preventive practices, doctors may miss opportunities to advise patients on changes that could prevent disease progression or recurrence

This emphasis isn’t surprising, given that the medical education system was shaped by figures like Rockefeller, who funded medical schools and influenced curricula to prioritize pharmaceutical solutions. Nutrition and lifestyle factors are often glossed over, leaving doctors less equipped to address these critical aspects of health. As the saying goes, “Never trust a fat doctor or a skinny chef.”

The Rising Obesity Crisis: Processed Foods, Gut Health, and the Pharmaceutical Machine

The U.S. is grappling with an escalating obesity epidemic, with 42% of Americans now classified as obese. This trend directly aligns with the rise in processed food consumption, as discussed in previous chapters, fueling a surge in metabolic disorders like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and even Alzheimer’s—now referred to by some researchers as “Type 3 diabetes” due to its connection to insulin resistance in the brain.

But this is just the beginning. Metabolic diseases, broadly defined as metabolic syndrome, are a growing health concern affecting millions and contributing to a range of chronic conditions. Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions that, when present together, significantly increase the risk of life-threatening diseases.

Doctors often tell patients that being prescribed a statin drug is a rite of passage, something almost everyone will experience eventually. In modern society, American doctors don’t consider this abnormal; rather, it’s seen as an inevitable part of aging. But in 2024, we’re far too advanced to let this mindset persist—so let’s break it down.

Big Pharma drives the narrative that medication is the primary remedy, sidelining preventive measures like proper nutrition and exercise. The algorithm that governs both media and healthcare conversations reinforces this pharmaceutical focus, ensuring that medication remains the default solution while prevention is pushed to the sidelines

One such drug is Ozempic, originally approved for Type 2 diabetes but now heavily marketed as a weight-loss solution. Novo Nordisk, the company behind Ozempic, specifically targets the U.S., where obesity rates are soaring. The drug works by altering gut hormone activity, impacting gut health and microbiome balance. While the long-term effects on gut health remain largely unstudied, disrupting natural hormone pathways could lead to broader health issues over time.

Even more concerning, patients on Ozempic often develop additional symptoms requiring further medications. The drug’s impact on can result in digestive issues, nutrient deficiencies, or other side effects—whether from the drug itself or as a result of being overweight. Instead of addressing these root causes, doctors frequently prescribe additional medications. This creates a cascade where patients take multiple drugs to manage symptoms while ignoring the dietary issues that could naturally resolve most of these conditions.

This approach locks patients into medication dependency, further tightening Big Pharma’s grip and perpetuating a cycle of overmedication. By design, the system prioritizes drug-based solutions over holistic, long-term strategies that could break this harmful cycle.

While Ozempic offers short-term weight loss, it bypasses the core issues of obesity—poor diet, sedentary lifestyles, and gut health. Even more troubling is that Ozempic is designed as a lifetime prescription, meaning patients must remain on it indefinitely to maintain results. This creates a dependency where patients rely on pharmaceuticals rather than sustainable lifestyle changes.

Financial incentives for promoting medications like Ozempic are enormous, particularly with Congress considering the “Treat and Reduce Obesity Act.” If passed, this legislation would expand Medicare coverage for anti-obesity medications, making drugs like Ozempic more accessible to millions of Americans. The financial implications are staggering—not only for patients, who will face long-term costs for these lifetime prescriptions, but also for the healthcare system, which could see trillions in additional spending. Ultimately, this burden falls on taxpayers, while pharmaceutical companies like Novo Nordisk become the most profitable company in europe, further cementing their dominance in healthcare by pushing drug-based solutions to the obesity crisis.

The Opioid Epidemic and Medical Recalls: Big Pharma’s Deadliest Legacy

The opioid epidemic remains one of the most devastating consequences of Big Pharma’s unchecked influence. At the heart of this crisis is Purdue Pharma, which aggressively marketed OxyContin while downplaying its addictive risks. Backed by deceptive marketing strategies, Purdue convinced doctors that opioids were safe for long-term use, incentivizing them to overprescribe these powerful drugs. What began as a treatment for pain quickly spiraled into a national addiction crisis, as patients became dependent on opioids, leading to widespread abuse, overdoses, and countless lives lost.

In a tragic twist of irony, the very companies that fueled the opioid crisis are now profiting from addiction treatments, such as methadone and Suboxone. This creates a perfect cycle where Big Pharma profits from both the illness it helped create and the medications to manage it. This algorithm of control—where human suffering generates profit at every stage—reveals the darkest side of the pharmaceutical industry’s grip on healthcare. Rather than addressing root causes, the system perpetuates illness, ensuring a continuous flow of revenue.

The opioid epidemic is just one example of Big Pharma’s pattern of rushing drugs to market without fully understanding—or disclosing—their long-term risks. Another infamous case is Vioxx, a pain medication heavily marketed before independent studies linked it to an increased risk of heart attacks. By the time Vioxx was recalled, it had been widely prescribed, and the damage was already done, with thousands of deaths linked to the drug.

By the time recalls happen, the financial success has already been achieved, but the cost to public health is irreversible. Vioxx is just one of many examples where the rush for profit outweighed concern for safety. The damage, in many cases, isn’t limited to the immediate harm caused by the drug itself—it’s the eroded trust in healthcare systems that rely on these companies to prioritize patient well-being.

Whether it’s the opioid epidemic or unsafe drugs like Vioxx, Big Pharma’s model is clear: prioritize short-term profits over long-term safety. The same companies that create addiction or harm through unsafe medications also conveniently provide the solutions, ensuring a continuous cycle of dependence. This creates a perpetual loop where patients are trapped between illness and treatment, with Big Pharma profiting at every turn.

As drugs are rushed to market and safety concerns are downplayed, patients are left to suffer the consequences. And when these same drugs lead to further health complications, Big Pharma swoops in with the next profitable solution, ensuring that their grip on healthcare remains unchallenged.

Beyond the Label: Questioning the Credibility of Science

The scientific process is an adventure into the unknown, a journey fueled by curiosity and a deep desire to understand the world around us. It all begins with a spark—an observation that raises questions and compels us to wonder, “Why does this happen?” From there, scientists form a hypothesis—an educated guess about what might be happening beneath the surface. But the real thrill comes with experimentation, where ideas are tested through carefully designed trials, and data is collected to either support or dismantle the initial thought.

As data accumulates, a clearer picture begins to emerge, guiding scientists toward a theory that encapsulates their newfound understanding. But science is not a solitary endeavor. Sharing these findings with the broader community is essential, as it allows others to replicate the results and build upon the knowledge. This relentless pursuit of truth and understanding defines the scientific process, holding it to the highest standard of integrity. When those lines begin to blur, we risk losing the very essence of science—the principles that drive us to explore, question, and expand our view of reality.

So who do we trust?

The credibility of scientific studies often depends on who funds and conducts the research. Third-party studies, conducted independently of corporate influence, tend to hold more weight as they are less likely to carry conflicts of interest. In contrast, in-house studies—those funded by the very companies that stand to profit—can be easily manipulated to produce favorable results.

Take the Monsanto Papers discussed in Chapter 5. These documents revealed how Monsanto ghostwrote studies, paying scientists to put their names on pre-drafted conclusions that downplayed risks. This tactic created the illusion of independent research, allowing Monsanto to push its products without scrutiny. This highlights why third-party research is essential for debunking industry-backed claims.

Trusting science becomes challenging when it operates within a for-profit system, as financial incentives can heavily influence research outcomes. When corporations fund studies, they often have vested interests in achieving favorable results to support their products and boost profits. This can lead to manipulated data, selective reporting, or even ghostwritten studies that disguise corporate bias as independent research.

For example, many pharmaceutical companies and supplement manufacturers sponsor studies that highlight only the positive aspects of their products while downplaying or ignoring potential risks. This biased research then influences healthcare guidelines, media narratives, and consumer perceptions, creating a cycle where profit-driven motives shape what is presented as “scientific truth.”

True science relies on transparency, rigorous peer review, and independent replication of results. To genuinely trust science, it is essential to support research that is conducted by third-party organizations free from corporate influence. These independent studies are less likely to be swayed by profit motives and are more focused on uncovering objective truths that benefit public health. As consumers, staying informed about who funds the research and seeking out diverse, unbiased sources of information can help us navigate a system where profit sometimes takes precedence over truth.

Furthermore, countless vitamins and supplements fail to deliver on their promises, often misrepresenting the quantity or quality of their ingredients. Studies have revealed that some products contain only a fraction of the advertised dosage, or include undeclared fillers and allergens, putting consumers at risk. With minimal FDA oversight, certain supplements have even been found to be contaminated with heavy metals or pesticides, underscoring the critical role of third-party testing and consumer vigilance in ensuring safety.

This issue isn’t limited to supplements; pharmaceutical companies have been caught in similar practices, further highlighting the need for thorough research before choosing any vitamin or medication. Always take the time to investigate your options and make informed decisions about what you put into your body.

These examples collectively illustrate that who writes the research is often more crucial than the information itself. Time and again, we see supposedly “good science” misleading consumers through various tactics, reinforcing the need for independent peer review. When research is free from corporate influence, it is far more likely to reflect unbiased and accurate outcomes—something our health and well-being depend on.

The truth is—not all science can be trusted. In a world where research can be influenced by profit motives, critical thinking becomes the backbone of making informed decisions. It’s essential to question the information presented to us, scrutinize sources, and consider who stands to benefit. By cultivating a habit of critical thinking, we empower ourselves to navigate complex issues with discernment and make wiser choices for our health and well-being.

The Rise of Neurological Disorders: Autism and Beyond

Neurological disorders are on the rise as well, and have been ever since the introduction of processed foods and unnecessary vaccines. Autism has surged from affecting 1 in 150 children in 2000 to 1 in 36 by 2020. Similar spikes are seen in ADHD, depression, and other cognitive disorders. Research increasingly links environmental factors—such as chemicals in food, water, and medications—to this alarming trend.

Processed foods, preservatives, and pharmaceuticals often contain toxins that disrupt brain development. Yet, instead of addressing these environmental risks, the healthcare system focuses on managing symptoms through medication. This is another layer of the algorithm of control: keeping patients dependent on pharmaceuticals rather than addressing the root causes of neurological disorders.

Much like the rest of this book, this next segment may stir controversy. I am not here to make claims or assumptions, but rather to provide a brief history of vaccines. My hope is that this exploration will help you see different perspectives a little more clearly. By understanding the roots and evolution of vaccines, we can gain insight into the varied viewpoints that shape our collective conversation on this complex subject.

Vaccines: The Algorithm of Birth

In 1998, British doctor Andrew Wakefield published a study in The Lancet suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. He pointed to mercury as a possible culprit, specifically due to thimerosal—a mercury-based preservative. While thimerosal was removed from most vaccines by 2001 due to raised concerns, Wakefield’s study is what brought this issue into the spotlight.

However, in 2010, The Lancet retracted the study, and Wakefield lost his medical license. He was forced to publicly retract his claims, as the study’s issues became clear. These included a small sample size of just 12 children and allegations that he had accepted money from parents who intended to bring forth legal action against vaccine manufacturers.

COVID-19 serves as another striking example. Earlier, we discussed how social media platforms were actively shutting down conversations on vaccine efficacy and the virus’s origins—going as far as banning a Harvard doctor who dared to speak out. In a world so saturated with misinformation, sometimes the truth can indeed seem crazy.

With Big Pharma’s monumental influence over media, politics, and the scientific community, they possess the power to silence, shut down, and criticize anyone who challenges their narrative. Further blurring the lines of real science. After all, who’s going to stop them?

In the 1960s, children received only a handful of vaccines. Today, they receive over 70 doses before adolescence. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 shields vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits, making vaccines a risk-free venture for pharmaceutical companies.

This immunity from legal accountability ensures that vaccines can be pushed to market with minimal oversight,testing, independent studies, or consequences when things do go wrong. The algorithm prioritizes the quantity of vaccines over rigorous safety, raising questions about whether the expansion of vaccine schedules is driven by profit rather than public health.

Not only are newborns largely immune to certain diseases, but some vaccines given on day one—like Hepatitis B—are of questionable necessity. Hep B, for instance, is transmitted through blood-to-blood contact, primarily via needle sharing or unprotected sex. While transmission from mother to child is possible, mothers are rigorously tested for STDs before birth. Given that infants aren’t engaging in these risk behaviors, why vaccinate them? The answer, it seems, often comes down to profits.

Take the early polio vaccine as another example. Initially, it was administered orally as a live virus, not realizing that live viruses can shed and potentially spread the disease. Patients vaccinated with this live virus could remain contagious for up to 28 days, inadvertently infecting others. While institutions today acknowledge this, they rarely discuss the extent of vaccine-linked transmissions. This live vaccine was eventually pulled from the market, yet some vaccines today—like the measles component in the MMR—still use live viruses, which has raised concerns about outbreaks linked to bad vaccine batches.

Vaccines have undoubtedly contributed to public health milestones, such as the eradication of smallpox and the control of polio. But in past generations, diseases like measles were seen as rites of passage, with “measles parties” allowing children to catch and recover from the illness. Although tragic fatalities did occur, these were seen as part of nature’s survival of the fittest.

Today, children receive exponentially more vaccines than previous generations, and we’re witnessing rises in autism, ADHD, learning disabilities, obesity, and other conditions. Could this be linked to increased vaccination or other systemic factors like food quality? The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other nation yet ranks among the unhealthiest. We are also one of the few developed countries without universal healthcare and one of only two that allow direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising.

These issues reflect a fundamentally flawed system, with revolving doors between politics and industry exacerbating the problems. As you consider various medical interventions, especially for your child, thorough research is crucial. The Hep B vaccine is just one example of a costly intervention that merits a closer look into its necessity and the motivations behind it.

Beyond vaccinations, other standard medical practices and interventions—like erythromycin eye ointment, delayed cord clamping, fetal monitoring, circumcision, forceps use, C-sections, inductions, epidurals, and other medications—should also be scrutinized. It’s essential to understand which of these procedures might cross the blood-brain barrier, which are potentially unnecessary, and what alternatives exist.

We need to ask critical questions: What are the long-term effects? Are there less invasive options? Is this procedure genuinely needed, or does it serve other interests? By looking closer at the evidence, we can make more informed choices that align with both scientific insights and personal values.

Remember, technology and science evolve rapidly. If your doctor graduated 20 years ago and hasn’t pursued ongoing education, they might be decades behind current trends. Moreover, hospitals are unlikely to eliminate procedures or medications that generate millions in revenue just because a new study advises to. They are corporations, after all, and as you’re beginning to understand, their priorities don’t always align with your best interests.

In the end, the only person you can truly trust is yourself. By staying informed and questioning what’s presented to you, you can make decisions that best serve your health and well-being.

The Cost of Big Pharma’s Algorithm

Big Pharma’s algorithm extends far beyond medication—it shapes our understanding of health, dictates what diseases are, and determines how many drugs we think we need. From the opioid crisis to vaccine schedules and the aggressive marketing of drugs like Ozempic, this system thrives on dependency.

This algorithm of control ensures that healthcare is about managing symptoms rather than curing diseases. It keeps people sick and reliant, with the system reinforcing itself at every level—from the food we eat to the medications we take. We may think organic and healthy is expensive, but you either pay the farmer today, or the doctor tomorrow.

The most important thing you can do is ask questions. Seek out alternatives, understand the side effects, consult with a dietitian, and learn what caused your ailment and how to prevent it in the future. Investigate the issue yourself. Doctors may not always be experts in a particular field, but someone out there is—someone who is actively researching, conducting studies, and dedicating their life to understanding your condition. Find them. Dive into their research, absorb all the information you can, and empower yourself. Only you fully know your body, your condition, and your symptoms, which are often difficult to communicate.

Remember, doctors are human. They make mistakes, and they aren’t supercomputers with all-encompassing knowledge at their fingertips. They’re not magicians or mind readers, and they operate within a system that often prioritizes synthetic drugs over natural alternatives. Many lack training in nutrition, and over time, some come to rely more on the guidance of pharmaceutical sales reps than on evolving scientific research. They are taught to trust the system and the process. But as we can see, this system isn’t always trustworthy.

Those at the top of this pyramid don’t want us to recognize the hidden influence they wield. As we’ve learned, words manipulate us, schools fail to educate us, the media withholds true information, and the FDA often falls short of protecting us. You might wonder: How did I not see this? How did we let the system stray so far, right under our noses, while we remained blind to it all?

How do ordinary people miss these connections yet still place blind trust in institutions meant to keep us safe? The answer lies in the subtle ways these influences are woven into our lives, making it hard to see the whole picture—until we start looking.

The answer- Entertainment.