Wellness influencers claim mainstream medicine ignores natural remedies. They’re wrong

How often have you heard that “Big Pharma doesn’t want you to know” about a “natural cure” because it doesn’t make them money?

This narrative is oftentimes embedded within a promotion of a naturally-occurring compound, like an herb or plant, as an effective alternative to prescription medication (see examples here, here, here, and here). However, the history of drug development tells us that naturally occurring compounds are the foundation for many important medicines that we use daily. This gives the lie to the assertion that mainstream medicine disregards naturally occurring therapeutic compounds.

Nevertheless, this narrative has remained prevalent for many years. It encompasses several incorrect beliefs, namely:

• What is natural is good. By contrast, what is artificial is bad. Also called appeal to nature.
• Simple cures for serious illnesses like cancer exist; they’re just being hidden from you so pharmaceutical companies can continue profiting.
• Mainstream medicine doesn’t have your best interests at heart.

Perhaps part of the reason for the narrative’s persistence is how it fulfills the emotional needs of a variety of people. These include the desperate patient seeking a cure, the contrarian who reflexively opposes medical consensus (regardless of the evidence), and the conspiracy theorist. However, this narrative is divorced from reality and those who buy into it can end up taking on unnecessary health risks. We explain below.

Mainstream medicine harnesses the power of nature all the time

As anyone who works in drug research and development can tell you, their work often draws on compounds found in nature (see publications here and here). This approach has given rise to many success stories used in mainstream medicine, some of which you might find familiar:

• The antibiotic penicillin which treats bacterial infection, derived from a Penicillium mold
• The anticancer chemotherapy drug paclitaxel, derived from the Pacific yew tree
• The painkiller and fever reducer aspirin, based on salicylic acid derived from certain plants, including willow bark
• The antimalarial drugs artemisinin and its derivatives. Artemisinin is isolated from the herb Artemisia annua (sweet wormwood)
• The antiparasitic drug ivermectin, based on a compound called avermectin found in soil
• The epilepsy drug cannabidiol used to treat some forms of seizures, derived from cannabis

These drugs demonstrate that mainstream medicine doesn’t hesitate to use natural compounds when it comes to seeking new therapies. Because at the end of the day, what matters is whether the compound is safe and effective for treating a medical condition—not where it comes from.

Pharma companies make money, but so do purveyors of natural health products

Those who employ this narrative sometimes pit pharmaceutical products against natural health products by citing the profits that the pharmaceutical industry makes. By positioning themselves as the polar opposite of “Big Pharma”, purveyors of natural health products project the image of an altruistic, benevolent person, free from the financial motivations that plague pharmaceutical companies and therefore more trustworthy.

Except that the numbers tell another story. It’s true that the global pharmaceutical industry’s revenue is massive: it was estimated at a whopping 1.7 trillion U.S. dollars in 2024. But there’s also plenty of money to be made in selling natural health products: in fact, the global supplement industry’s worth has been estimated at nearly 200 billion U.S. dollars.

In short, the perception that people selling natural health products don’t have conflicts of interest is false. This false perception is also compounded by the lack of transparency in the marketing of natural health products compared to medicines. Unlike advertisements for pharmaceuticals which need to be clearly labeled as such, wellness influencers who sell supplements may not disclose when a post is a paid advertisement, misleading users into believing that advertisements are authentic reviews in order to increase sales.

“Flaws in aircraft design do not prove the existence of magic carpets”

Distrust in pharmaceutical companies is founded in real events, as this article from the McGill Office for Science and Society acknowledged. From misleading doctors about a drug’s effectiveness to manipulating data about the risk of a drug, it’s clear that blind trust in the pharmaceutical industry isn’t the way forward. However, the article also correctly pointed out that pharmaceutical companies’ flaws don’t constitute evidence of natural health products’ effectiveness or safety:

“Natural health products, a very lucrative industry onto itself, are known to suffer from adulterations and contaminations due to poorer regulations and the desire to cut costs on expensive products like saffron.”

Indeed, natural health products are typically marketed as dietary supplements which aren’t regulated as tightly as medicines. This in turn creates situations that put consumers at risk.

For example, dietary supplements don’t need to be tested in clinical trials to establish their safety and effectiveness. In addition, the purity of their ingredients isn’t subjected to as much scrutiny. Harmful contaminants, like heavy metals and toxic fungi, have been detected in dietary supplements on the market.

Finally, supplements may contain substances that aren’t declared in their ingredient lists. This is a problem because these substances could cause adverse health effects or interact with prescription medication in dangerous ways.

“Natural” is not a synonym for “harmless”

We at Science Feedback have pointed this out numerous times across different articles, but it bears repeating given how pervasive this idea is. The fact that something is natural does not automatically mean it is harmless. Snake venom and disease-causing microorganisms are naturally occurring, but they aren’t harmless. Conversely, the fact that something is human-made does not automatically make it harmful.

The belief that natural compounds are more “gentle” on the body is another popular notion, but the evidence disproves it. There have been documented cases of supplements making people ill. Some have even died. A study estimated that adverse events linked to dietary supplements led to 23,000 emergency room visits per year in the U.S.

The bottom line: deciding if something is good or bad for you based on whether it was harvested in nature or synthesized isn’t a hallmark of sound reasoning. Making informed decisions about health requires accurate information and evidence, not flawed logical shortcuts.

References

1. Geller et al. (2015) Emergency Department Visits for Adverse Events Related to Dietary Supplements. New England Journal of Medicine.