Health
Wellness Revolution

|
|
From Courageous Discourse
Why Nutraceuticals are the Next Big Thing
The New Health Conscious
The revival of health consciousness that has taken place in this decade has changed the way the general public views healthcare—forever. The COVID Operation put health back into the conversation. This elevation in the collective health consciousness has led to a Wellness Revolution, worldwide.
Patients now understand the reality of the state of healthcare systems. The fact is that we are a highly medicated and highly vaccinated society, and the truth is that as the use of these products has increased, so has disease prevalence.
If we take more vaccines and more medications than ever before as a society, shouldn’t we be healthier than ever? Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. The global population is sick and only getting sicker; the toxic injectable products, gene therapy, so-called “COVID Vaccines” made sure that people become permanent clients of the sick-care industrial complex.
A stellar example of this phenomenon is the United States. The United States makes up around 4% of the world’s population, yet it represents around 64 to 78 percent of global pharmaceutical profits. This should mean that Americans are the healthiest in the world by far, right? Unfortunately, no. The United States leads the world in chronic disease prevalence and has a significantly lower life expectancy than most other developed nations.
The current system is fraudulent. People are taking notice of this fraud. In protest, they are looking for alternatives to traditional medicines for disease care. One of the emerging therapeutics in this realm is nutraceuticals.
Nutraceuticals are foods or elements of food obtained from plant or animal origin with significant medical or health benefits utilized to prevent or cure diseases. The medicinal use of food or food elements derives from the beginning of modern medical understanding. Hippocrates is famous for his remarks on this issue. He states, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.”
As an allopath (Pediatric Allergist/Immunologist), I increasingly shift towards this alternative line of thinking. I am not saying that all medications are bad, but I think we have to be far more selective in the way we use them.
Recently the term “nutraceuticals” has regained relevance. Once brushed off by the medical community as fringe “pseudoscience” with no demonstrated clinical benefits, is now being lauded at the highest levels of healthcare policy. In a controversial tweet, just before the U.S. Presidential Election, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shared some details of his plans for public health in the United States.
I have repeatedly mentioned the significance of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appointment to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. His appointment assures that the official narratives on alternative approaches will change from a tone of “aggressive suppression” as RFK describes it, to one of medical freedom. This will surely accelerate the effects of the wellness revolution.
The Wellness Revolution
This movement represents a change in the public’s attitudes toward their health. This has materialized in several different ways. First, it is in the products that patients choose to consume. Pharma, for example, has taken advantage of this wellness attitude shift by introducing products such as GLP-1s, statins, and other drugs to remediate the effects of the chronic disease epidemic that they caused. Additionally, it’s very common to see these drugs cause side effects, forcing patients to take yet another pill to “alleviate” the adverse effects, resulting in a never-ending vicious cycle.
It all boils down to a social movement that emphasizes disease prevention and longevity. The medical device industry has seen an explosion of growth for these reasons. Particularly wearable medical devices such as health trackers. These functional health trends are transforming patient care.
Probably the most significant way that this wellness revolution is materializing is in terms of diet and nutrition. The dietary supplement and nutrition industry has seen an explosion in growth over the last couple of decades, and with growing demand due to distrust and disillusion with traditional pharma and medical systems, this growth is set to continue. But even in nutrition, we have to regulate how they treat the source with pesticides and fertilizers, etc.
The term “nutraceuticals” is relatively new but has gained rapid relevance in alternative medical spaces. Although the term encompasses a broad umbrella of elements, essentially it refers to natural food products or components found in food that can be utilized for medicinal purposes. This can include components such as prebiotics, probiotics, vitamins, fibers, etc.
This functional approach to health is what will take the medical profession into the future. At the end of the day, these methods are in the best interest of the patient.
The microbiome is another example. A new world of information that explains how bifidobacteria interact and regulate many bodily functions. Dr. Sabine Hazan, an expert in the field, has talked extensively about this issue in her book “Let’s Talk SH!T”, a must-read.
Functional foods and nutraceuticals will be the base of treatment in the foreseeable future. These compounds provide health benefits beyond basic nutrition and contain bioactive compounds that can affect the body in various ways. for example, reduce cholesterol levels and inflammation, including examples such as fermented foods like miso, kimchi, flax seeds, salmon, omega-3 fatty acids, and walnuts. While compounds such as probiotics promote gut microbiota balance, which is crucial for immunity and digestion.
The immense majority of diseases have one common denominator: Inflammation. Considering how functional foods and nutraceuticals have inflammation-reducing benefits, these products can have an extensive range of applications.
I would like to provide a couple of examples of bioactive compounds that have medicinal benefits. Turmeric and Curcumin, for example, have anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant benefits and may also contribute to remediating the effects of heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and depression. Some even cite turmeric’s potential to inhibit cancer progression.
What the shift to these products also represents is an emphasis on prevention. Increased clinical use of these types of natural products will promote a culture of disease prevention rather than disease management.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was asked in an interview recently with CNBC’s Jim Cramer about his thoughts on GLP-1s. RFK Jr. responded by saying “The first line of response should be lifestyle. It should be eating well—making sure you don’t get obese…”
This represents a fundamental shift in the line of thinking in those leading public health policy. I have never heard anyone in government speak that way.
The ideological change that is set to take place as the new administration takes power will surely flow downstream to medical standards of care, further exacerbating the growth in the market of natural remedies, including nutraceuticals.
I fully support this change. For too long, patients and even doctors have been attacked on all fronts, forcing them to cave to the status quo or face excommunication from the medical religion. If we are sincere, medicine is a religion. Dr. Robert Mendelsohn touches on this topic in his book “Confessions of a Medical Heretic”.
Physicians from all medical orthodoxies, whether they be allopathic, homeopathic, osteopathic, or naturopathic, should unite in consensus about the healing effects of these compounds and their applications in treating and managing disease.
A shift away from over-medication is necessary to reverse the effects of the chronic disease epidemic and the long-term promotion of optimal health.
Nutraceuticals: Bridging the Gap between Nutrition and Medicine. This emerging field has become a cornerstone in the shift towards preventive healthcare, where the focus is not only on treating illness but also on sustaining optimal health. A new awareness in the field of medicine is on the rise, as physicians, we have to be loyal to our Hippocratic oath “Primum non nocere”. In modern medicine, praxis physicians rarely ask the patient about the quality of their sleep, the basis of their diet, and the patient’s social environment.
I’m excited to see what the future holds for this momentous awakening.
FIN
Biopolitiks by Dr. Alejandro Diaz
Share and subscribe for critical insights on how health and politics shape our world. Join a growing community working to redefine the future of healthcare and governance.
Aristotle Foundation
The Canadian Medical Association’s inexplicable stance on pediatric gender medicine

By Dr. J. Edward Les
The thalidomide saga is particularly instructive: Canada was the last developed country to pull thalidomide from its shelves — three months during which babies continued to be born in this country with absent or deformed limbs
Physicians have a duty to put forward the best possible evidence, not ideology, based treatments
Late last month, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) announced that it, along with three Alberta doctors, had filed a constitutional challenge to Alberta’s Bill 26 “to protect the relationship between patients, their families and doctors when it comes to making treatment decisions.”
Bill 26, which became law last December, prohibits doctors in the province from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapies for those under 16; it also bans doctors from performing gender-reassignment surgeries on minors (those under 18).
The unprecedented CMA action follows its strongly worded response in February 2024 to Alberta’s (at the time) proposed legislation:
“The CMA is deeply concerned about any government proposal that restricts access to evidence-based medical care, including the Alberta government’s proposed restrictions on gender-affirming treatments for pediatric transgender patients.”
But here’s the problem with that statement, and with the CMA’s position: the evidence supporting the “gender affirmation” model of care — which propels minors onto puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and in some cases, surgery — is essentially non-existent. That’s why the United Kingdom’s Conservative government, in the aftermath of the exhaustive four-year-long Cass Review, which laid bare the lack of evidence for that model, and which shone a light on the deeply troubling potential for the model’s irreversible harm to youth, initiated a temporary ban on puberty blockers — a ban made permanent last December by the subsequent Labour government. And that’s why other European jurisdictions like Finland and Sweden, after reviews of gender affirming care practices in their countries, have similarly slammed the brakes on the administration of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones to minors.
It’s not only the Europeans who have raised concerns. The alarm bells are ringing loudly within our own borders: earlier this year, a group at McMaster University, headed by none other than Dr. Gordon Guyatt, one of the founding gurus of the “evidence-based care” construct that rightfully underpins modern medical practice, issued a pair of exhaustive systematic reviews and meta analyses that cast grave doubts on the wisdom of prescribing these drugs to youth.
And yet, the CMA purports to be “deeply concerned about any government proposal that restricts access to evidence-based medical care,” which begs the obvious question: Where, exactly, is the evidence for the benefits of the “gender affirming” model of care? The answer is that it’s scant at best. Worse, the evidence that does exist, points, on balance, to infliction of harm, rather than provision of benefit.
CMA President Joss Reimer, in the group’s announcement of the organization’s legal action, said:
“Medicine is a calling. Doctors pursue it because they are compelled to care for and promote the well-being of patients. When a government bans specific treatments, it interferes with a doctor’s ability to empower patients to choose the best care possible.”
Indeed, we physicians have a sacred duty to pursue the well-being of our patients. But that means that we should be putting forward the best possible treatments based on actual evidence.
When Dr. Reimer states that a government that bans specific treatments is interfering with medical care, she displays a woeful ignorance of medical history. Because doctors don’t always get things right: look to the sad narratives of frontal lobotomies, the oxycontin crisis, thalidomide, to name a few.
The thalidomide saga is particularly instructive: it illustrates what happens when a government drags its heels on necessary action. Canada was the last developed country to pull thalidomide, given to pregnant women for morning sickness, from its shelves, three months after it had been banned everywhere else — three months during which babies continued to be born in this country with absent or deformed limbs, along with other severe anomalies. It’s a shameful chapter in our medical past, but it pales in comparison to the astonishing intransigence our medical leaders have displayed — and continue to display — on the youth gender care file.
A final note (prompted by thalidomide’s history), to speak to a significant quibble I have with Alberta’s Bill 26 legislation: as much as I admire Premier Danielle Smith’s courage in bringing it forward, the law contains a loophole allowing minors already on puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones to continue to take them. Imagine if, after it was removed from the shelves in 1962, government had allowed pregnant women already on the drug to continue to take thalidomide. Would that have made any sense? Of course not. And the same applies to puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones: they should be banned outright for all youth.
That argument is the kind our medical associations should be making — and would be making, if they weren’t so firmly in the grasp, seemingly, of ideologues who have abandoned evidence-based medical care for our youth.
J. Edward Les is a Calgary pediatrician, a senior fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and co-author of “Teenagers, Children, and Gender Transition Policy: A Comparison of Transgender Medical Policy for Minors in Canada, the United States, and Europe.”
Health
RFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’

From LifeSiteNews
By Robert Jones
RFK Jr.’s HHS has removed all Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices members in an effort to reset public confidence in vaccine oversight.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has dismissed every member of the CDC’s top vaccine advisory panel, citing what he described as a “decades” of “conflicts of interest” and “skewed science” in the vaccine regulatory system.
RFK Jr.’s abrupt decision to “retire” all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was announced in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Monday and confirmed by HHS shortly thereafter.
The move marks the most sweeping reform to federal vaccine policy in years and follows months of internal reviews and mounting public skepticism.
Kennedy accused the ACIP of being “little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine,” claiming “it has never recommended against a vaccine.”
“The public must know that unbiased science guides the recommendations from our health agencies,” Kennedy wrote. “This will ensure the American people receive the safest vaccines possible.”
ACIP holds the power to influence which vaccines are recommended by the CDC and covered by insurers. But according to Kennedy, it has failed in its duty to protect the public.
He cited multiple government investigations—dating back to 2000 and 2009—finding that ACIP members were routinely advising on products from pharmaceutical firms with which they had financial ties. Committee members were also issued conflict-of-interest waivers from the CDC.
Kennedy pointed to the 1997 vote approving the Rotashield vaccine – later withdrawn for causing severe bowel obstructions in infants – as a case study in regulatory failure. Four of the eight members who voted for it had financial stakes in rotavirus vaccines under development.
He explained “retiring” the 17 members, “some of whom were last-minute appointees of the Biden administration,” by saying that without such a move, “the Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority” until 2028.
CNBC warned the firings could “undermine vaccinations” and erode trust among scientists. But Kennedy, a longtime vaccine industry sceptic, maintains that trust has already “collapsed” – and that restoring it requires nothing less than a full reset.
Under Kennedy’s leadership, HHS has already halted recommendations for routine COVID-19 shots for healthy children and pregnant women and cancelled COVID-era programs to fast-track new vaccines.
It remains unclear who will replace the outgoing ACIP members, though HHS confirmed the committee will still meet later this month, now under new leadership.
“The new members won’t directly work for the vaccine industry,” he promised. “They will exercise independent judgment, refuse to serve as a rubber stamp, and foster a culture of critical inquiry—unafraid to ask hard questions.”
-
Health2 days ago
RFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’
-
Business1 day ago
EU investigates major pornographic site over failure to protect children
-
Immigration2 days ago
Mass immigration can cause enormous shifts in local culture, national identity, and community cohesion
-
Canadian Energy Centre1 day ago
Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project
-
Economy1 day ago
Carney’s Promise of Expediting Resource Projects Feels Like a Modern Version of the Wicked Stepmother from Disney’s Cinderella
-
Alberta1 day ago
Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy
-
Crime1 day ago
Manhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband
-
Business19 hours ago
Carney’s European pivot could quietly reshape Canada’s sovereignty