Hidden Agenda: Exposing the True Cost of America’s Chronic Disease Crisis

Discover How Big Pharma And Food Giants Are Driving The US Health Crisis While Suppressing Lifestyle Cures.



America is drowning in a health crisis of staggering proportions. It is a silent killer. At least 129 million adults in America, about 60 percent of the people in this country, suffer from at least one chronic condition. Of this number, approximately 50-60 million people rely heavily on prescriptions for disease management and take multiple medications, with the average person using 4 to 5 prescriptions daily.

This stunning statistic carries a grim toll. The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) estimates there are up to 250,000 deaths and 2.2 million hospitalizations yearly just from adverse drug events related to the medications taken to combat chronic disease.

The FDA identifies an adverse event as “Any undesirable experience associated with the use of a medical product in a patient, whether or not it is considered related to the medical product.” It is an unintended side effect that includes deaths, life-threatening reactions, hospitalizations, disabilities, and other serious outcomes from a prescription medication. It is the third leading cause of death in the United States, right after heart disease and cancer.

But the real scandal is that this data is deliberately being swept under the rug and hidden from public view. Tied to this, are the lies, the ignored truths, and the gaslighting found in today’s healthcare system. Publicizing high adverse events, according to health experts, undermines confidence in healthcare, especially in medications for chronic disease. They claim that selective disclosure protects public trust and encourages adherence to beneficial therapies, “which saves millions of lives.”

The Invisible Killer



Interestingly, adverse drug events do not appear on the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) list of the top 20 causes of death. Physicians rarely list an adverse event as the official cause of death on a death certificate. The CDC relies on death certificate information to classify causality. Mortality is traditionally attributed to the underlying health condition, such as heart disease, kidney failure, or cardiac arrest, rather than a drug reaction.

For example, lisinopril, a drug used to treat hypertension, heart failure, and heart attacks, can cause angioedema, which may lead to severe swelling in the airways, potentially resulting in death. In fact, about 16,000–18,000 deaths have been reported in FAERS for 2025 tied to this drug. These deaths are often coded as “respiratory failure” or “hypertension-related” instead of the true cause, an adverse event.

This same skewed information is encountered when talking about the drug metformin. Metformin-induced lactic acidosis is a serious condition that can occur when metformin accumulates in the body, leading to a dangerous buildup of lactic acid. It is associated with about 4,000–5,000 deaths in 2025. These deaths are often coded as “metabolic acidosis” or “diabetes-related complication”, rather than an undesirable drug reaction. This practice obscures the direct link between a medication and the CDC’s mortality data.

America’s Health Crisis Deadly Trifecta



Approximately 30–40 million adults in the US suffer the “trifecta” of health concerns, a combination of hypertension (high blood pressure), hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol), and type 2 diabetes (T2D). They are interconnected chronic conditions that significantly contribute to the U.S. health crisis. They form a deadly trio due to their high prevalence, shared risk factors, and synergistic impact on cardiovascular disease. The CDC identifies them as being responsible for about 600,000–800,000 deaths annually and of these deaths 47,000–85,000 are linked to adverse drug reactions.

There is an accepted understanding regarding the primary risk factors and causes of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and type 2 diabetes. These causes are reflected in guidance from the CDC, the American Heart Association (AHA), and the World Health Organization (WHO). Excluding aging, these health conditions are driven by lifestyle and metabolic factors. The primarily common denominators are obesity, a sedentary lifestyle and an unhealthy diet.

This catastrophic failure of the conventional healthcare system is no accident; it’s the result of a deliberate, profitable business model. Data shows that drugs for common conditions like hypertension (Lisinopril) and hyperlipidemia (statins) are linked to millions of serious reactions yearly, yet these products are aggressively marketed over diet and lifestyle changes or other alternative therapies.

From Home Cooked to Fast Food



The American diet began to change at the turn of the century. In addition to major shifts in the newly emerging health industry, as the country began to industrialize, the U.S. saw the establishment of the country’s first fast food chains. A&W opened its doors in 1919, and White Castle in 1921. With the conclusion of World War II, the American diet shifted again with the incorporation of canned goods like Campbell’s soup and Spam, which offered shelf-stable options for busy households. Refined sugars and other processed foods also entered our dietary choices. Consumption of these food items rose from 10-20% of our caloric intake in the 1940s to 20-30% by the 1950s.

The fast food industry exploded in the 1950s with familiar names such as McDonald’s, Burger King, and KFC opening for business around the country. These chains are known for their high-fat, high-sugar, calorie-dense meals. New appliances like refrigerators set off a frenzy of frozen food offerings like Birds Eye Frozen Vegetables and Swanson TV dinners.

“Convenience foods,” pre-packaged, ready-to-eat, or easy-to-prepare products were also readily available in stores. They included foods like Raman noodles, Pop-Tarts, Pringles, Hamburger Helper, Shake-n-Bake, and Cool Whip. To increase profit margins, these foods were often loaded with food additives, including preservatives, artificial flavors, and colors. The food industry saw nothing wrong with falsely marketing them as healthy, and after a short time, these food institutions became dietary staples.

The day of the home-cooked meal was rapidly disappearing. By the 2000s, convenience and fast foods dominated, with 60% of our calories coming from these pre-made, preprocessed offerings despite push-back for healthier options. Along with it, obesity rates rose from 10-12% (1940s) to 15% (1960s) to 44% (2025). Hypertension prevalence grew from 10-15% (1940s) to 47% (2025) as sodium intake increased. Hyperlipidemia rose from 5-10% (1940s) to 38% (2025) as dietary intake of saturated and trans-fats from convenience foods grew. Sugar consumption escalated from 20g/day (1940s) to 40g/day (1960s), peaking around 100 to 120 g/day in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Science Confirms the Lifestyle Link



By the 1940s, serious health questions were being raised, and studies into the link between high-sodium diets and hypertension were being considered. There weren’t any drugs to combat high blood pressure in the 1940s. To address this growing concern, German physician Dr. Walter Kempner developed a radical dietary intervention. It called for the severe restriction of sodium, fats, and proteins. Known as the “Rice Diet,” he achieved results previously thought impossible. His work demonstrated the profound impact of diet on cardiovascular and metabolic health. It showed that a low-sodium, plant-based diet reduced blood pressure even in severe hypertension cas

By 1948, health authorities realized there was trouble in paradise. Heart disease was fast becoming the leading cause of death in America. That year, the U.S. Public Health Service initiated a study, the “Framingham Heart Study”, in response. They wanted to identify the common factors that contributed to cardiovascular disease.

The study definitively identified and quantified the link between several common, modifiable factors and the subsequent development of a heart attack or stroke. Its key discoveries included the identification of high blood pressure and high cholesterol as major drivers of cardiovascular disease. It also established the critical negative role of obesity, diabetes, and physical inactivity in heart health.

The results of these early long-term studies into the impact of diet and lifestyle, and their connection to heart disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, and physical inactivity, were generally accepted by the medical and scientific communities by the mid-1960s. The American Heart Association (AHA) incorporated the Framingham findings into its early guidelines, recommending a low-sodium, low-fat diet for blood pressure and cholesterol management.

This should have been it, period, end of story. However, additional studies, including the Ancel Keys’ Seven Countries Study, the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) trial, the Pima Indian studies, and the Diabetes Prevention Program, validated the early work done by Kempner and the results found in the Framingham Heart Study.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, Americans were not sufficiently warned of the long-term repercussions of their food choices. Health authorities used pamphlets, medical education, government reports, and community programs to notify the public. Their halfhearted efforts did little to sway people’s selections. The general public viewed fast and convenience foods as progress, not a health risk. Instead of steering clear of these slow killers, thanks to the assertive marketing of the food industry, they were culturally embraced.

Health officials were quick to blame “low health literacy” for the rising epidemic, while warnings from the country’s largest health organizations merely paid lip service to the problem. They did little to educate the public or address their concerns. Safety issues in the growing automotive industry also raised alarms, but these concerns and the steps taken resulted in a very different outcome.

Prioritizing Profit Over Public Health



Starting in the 1950s, studies like the Cornell Crash Injury Research and Volvo’s three-point seat belt invention showed seat belts reduced crash fatalities by 45-50% and injuries by 60%. By 1966, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act mandated that seat belts be installed in all new cars. Recommendations for wearing seat belts were sent out, but people paid little attention to them. New York’s 1984 seat belt law changed all of that and sparked widespread seatbelt mandates around the country, imposing fines on those who did not comply.

Like seatbelts, there was clear evidence by the 1960s that a healthy diet and active lifestyle could significantly reduce health threats, especially for the big three. Today, 70–80% of the edible products sold in supermarkets are high-fat, ultra-processed, chemically laden foods. Temptation exists around every corner, and the perception that these foods are good for you confuses the average shopper. “Health foods”, in addition to being significantly more expensive, are often relegated to a few shelves in not-well-traveled sections of the market.

Up until the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), little has been done to better educate the public or rein in the food industry. Instead, a different route, a more profitable route, was chosen to address these concerns.

The Perpetual Customer Model



The food industry downplayed the dietary risks of their products as chronic diseases rose. Medications quickly became primary responses to counteract the health epidemic. Big pharma’s immense advertising budget promoted drugs over lifestyle changes. Early antihypertensives like thiazides and insulin for type 2 diabetes became the preferred way out of the crisis. Taking a pill to address a health dilemma was promoted as a much easier way of dealing with health concerns rather than changing your diet and getting a little exercise. Happiness through chemistry!

The pharmaceutical industry has cornered the market on health, insinuating that they are the only ones who can “cure” disease. This claim of having the sole ability to heal an ailment has fooled generations. However, the term “cure“ truly implies the complete eradication of a condition, restoring health without the need for ongoing treatment. A cure is a one-time event; once a patient is cured, therapy or drugs are no longer necessary.

The reality is, modern medicine still can’t cure the common cold. Acute conditions like a bacterial, viral, or parasitic infection are the rare exceptions to the rule where a cure is possible with medication alone. The only thing most drugs can do is manage symptoms, reduce complications or slow a disease’s progression. Most health conditions are identified as non-curable and require regular and ongoing treatment. This creates a perpetual customer and a stable, ongoing revenue stream that can last decades. If a disease is cured, the revenue stream would end. This financial risk incentivizes pharmaceutical companies to focus on products with a more enduring fiscal return. Good for them, bad for us.


Financial Risk vs. Potential Cure



Perhaps a more pragmatic approach, a healthier approach, would be to start care with alternative therapies such as diet, exercise, lifestyle changes, herbal remedies, dietary supplements, or other complementary and alternative medicine methods. Then, if a health concern progresses, switch over to stronger conventional treatments. This step-up strategy, trying gentler, less invasive options first, makes intuitive sense for patient autonomy and minimizing side effects.

This path of action nevertheless faces significant scientific, medical, ethical, and systemic challenges. The health industry contends that conventional medications are backed by large-scale, randomized controlled trials. They show significant reductions in mortality and morbidity in a short period of time. Alternative therapies lack this level of evidence for the primary management of serious health concerns. Traditional health care providers, online sources, and health officials have weaponized this fact to deter the unsuspecting public from considering any alternative therapies as a first-line treatment.

It is not that these methods do not or could not work, but the time, energy, and expense in performing large-scale, randomized trials are prohibitive. This is why research into herbs, supplements, and other alternative therapies has rarely been performed. The pharmaceutical industry cannot make any money from diet and lifestyle changes. They cannot patent herbs and supplements and charge massive amounts for their distribution. These facts drive the decision to leave a massive array of potential treatments on the table.

Alternative therapies have risks too, but compared to traditional medications, they are extremely low. Cases of heart palpitations, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, and other concerns have been reported with supplement use. Severe reactions have occured in approximately 2,000–3,000 cases, with 3–10 deaths reported annually. This is a far cry from the 250,000 deaths and 2.2 million hospitalizations due to the adverse effects of prescription medications.

Getting the word out about the benefits of diet and lifestyle changes faces other challenges. The health benefits of complementary healing methods are actively being censored by platforms like Google and are dismissed by the medical community. Doctors are trained to follow “evidence-based protocols” to minimize liability and ensure they get their insurance reimbursements. Providers do not recommend alternatives first for fear of being sued for malpractice, even if their patient desires trying unorthodox methods first. Traditional health insurance also does not cover health education, and many doctors will not sacrifice the time it takes to teach their patients lifestyle cures. If the healthcare industry could make money by pitching diet, lifestyle, and herbal remedies, they would be more interested in advocating for them. Since they cannot profit significantly from these approaches, they and their financial interests remain largely uninterested in helping the public regain health through natural or holistic means.

The Cure You Don’t Hear About



The truth of the matter is that lifestyle changes and traditional, low-risk remedies can contribute to the complete remission of symptoms for conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. These changes can enable patients to discontinue their medications entirely. This fact is held very closely to the vest. Health authorities claim dietary changes, exercise, and supplements only reflect a remission in symptoms rather than a permanent cure. The same can be said about their prescription medicine counterparts. You will never be cured if you take a prescription medication. If you stop a drug without any other kind of intervention, the symptoms will return.

Without any kind of behavioral modifications, i.e., dieting or exercising, approximately 20-40% of all patients will require an escalation in dosage within 3-10 years or need a more potent drug to counteract worsening symptoms. By seriously addressing negative lifestyle issues, the need for escalation can be significantly reduced, if not eliminated. Success depends on early intervention, sustained adherence, and regular monitoring. Of the top 50 health concerns facing Americans, only 6 conditions show no improvement in disease progression of core symptoms from diet and lifestyle changes. This list is made up of genetic and congenital conditions, including sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, congenital heart defects, Down syndrome, and muscular dystrophy. The remaining would receive benefits.

The Compliance Challenge



The biggest challenge we face in incorporating healthier alternatives over drug-based therapy is compliance. The average American will often begin a plan of healthy eating, dieting, exercising, and other lifestyle changes, but will often go back to their previous behaviors.

For example, there are countless individuals who will adhere to a strict diet and exercise plan. Once their desired weight goal is achieved, they will relapse and resume their original lifestyle of low exercise and eating unhealthy foods. Their weight often increases quickly. Health concerns like diabetes and high blood pressure, if they had gone into remission, will reappear.

True lifestyle change is not a short-term commitment you maintain for a week, a month, or even a year; it is about establishing sustainable shifts that last a lifetime. This means developing a new, lasting relationship with your body, which is meant to be permanent, not temporary. It is important to understand that people are not to blame for their choices. Many are simply navigating life with incomplete information. Society has presented convenient and highly processed foods as the default option for a balanced meal, frequently omitting the crucial context that overconsumption can negatively affect their overall health.

The programming running rampant through society—the desire for the “magic bullet,” a quick fix featuring convenience over effort—is what has gotten us into this situation. Who wants to stop eating potato chips, cinnamon rolls, and exercise when they can simply take a pill to counteract their unhealthy behavior? The question is, at what cost?

Health authorities, like the AHA, the CDC and the WHO have implied that patients prefer taking pills to deal with their health concers. But if evidence of a different approach is not presented, if the risks of side effects are not fully revealed, and the only choice we are given is to take the pill or die, why wouldn’t we comply and take the medication?

Lifestyle: The Unreimbursed Investment



Health insurance companies incentivize medication over proactive care. Due to established contracts with pharmaceutical companies, they reimburse prescriptions at a higher rate than they do for lifestyle counseling or wellness programs. Addressing one’s health proactively through a program of diet, exercise, and lifestyle change requires a significant long-term investment from the patient, especially for those new to healthy living concepts. Furthermore, without proper education, the success of such a program is contingent on patient compliance, unlike the guaranteed results of a prescribed medication.

Insurance companies currently bear the brunt of prescription medication costs, effectively shielding their customers from the true financial burden of the drugs they are taking. If people were required to pay the full price out of pocket for their medications, they might think very differently about investing in long-term, permanent lifestyle changes to improve their health. They are often free of cost.

Most major private insurance plans cover nutrition counseling. These services are often only available for at-risk individuals, like those suffering from diabetes or hypertension, and many times require a medical diagnosis or referral. This leaves the average American out in the cold. Our system is not designed to provide individuals with the tools or knowledge needed to address their health until after the fact. Doctors do not help this situation. They take the oath to “do no harm,” yet physicians prioritize medications over good common sense. Many label alternative therapies as ineffective or as misinformation. They also lack extensive training in nutrition or behavior change. A typical visit to a primary care provider averages 15-20 minutes. This leaves time for health education or lifestyle counseling.

Profit Dictates Health Policy



Several factors actively interfere with effective health education in America. Pharmaceutical companies heavily influence the system, spending roughly $5 billion dollars annually on marketing and around $30 million on lobbying, which influences the FDA’s drug approval process and guidelines. In stark contrast, wellness programs lack any comparable advocacy or financial support.

This imbalance is obvious in the media. During any given television show, multiple drug advertizements promoting medications are aired. Commercials from organizations like the CDC, WHO, AHA or the FDA discussing the benefits of diet, exercise, or healthy lifestyle changes are virtually non-existent.

Right behind the pharmaceutical industry are the food giants with their direct ties to the FDA. The FDA is responsible for identifying what foods are safe and wholesome to eat. The food lobby used its influence to weaken the FDA’s nutrition guidelines, which, over time, has normalized unhealthy products as part of a healthy American diet. The food industry also uses aggressive, misleading marketing to promote cheap, ultra-processed, high fat, high sugar or chemically laced foods like Pop-Tarts as a part of a “healthy breakfast.”

Kellogg’s Nutri-Grain bars are a great example of misleading advertising in the food industry. Nutri-Grain bars are marketed as a convenient, fruit-filled, whole-grain breakfast snack. The reality is, according to the NOVA food classification system, they are not healthy. They are categorized as an ultra-processed food due to the long list of additives, high sugar content, and their reliance on refined ingredients for shelf stability and flavor. While they offer some benefits like whole grains and vitamin fortification, they are far from healthy.

The CDC, which is tasked with protecting public health through disease control, prevention, and mitigation, washes its hands in this matter. They claim that their primary role is surveillance, education, and prevention, not regulation. They, in their advisory role, can supply data regarding the foods we eat, but cannot hold the food industry accountable for the products companies manufacture and sell. They can only provide educational guidelines and cannot force the food industry to change. They claim their influence over the FDA is limited and by themselves cannot mandate policy changes.

Simply said, the food and pharmaceutical industries exert dominant influence over public health bodies like the FDA and the CDC, overriding the mandates to protect the public. These for-profit entities effectively dictate health policy in the United States, which directly contributes to the widespread sickness seen today.

Ignored Cures, Preventable Deaths and Institutional Silence



The public has been fooled into believing medications are the only solution to health issues, and it’s no surprise that lifestyle changes are taken with a grain of salt. When faced with a serious condition, why would someone choose long-term habit changes over a seemingly quick fix?

Improving health education and increasing accountability of food producers could significantly reduce the U.S. health crisis, characterized by high rates of chronic diseases. Adopting healthy behaviors offers a natural path to reducing reliance on medication and achieving a “remission” of symptoms, thereby adding years of health and vitality to one’s life. Given the immense influence the drug and food industries currently wield over the nation, it seems unlikely they will ever be held accountable for their knowing malfeasance unless decisive steps are taken to significantly curtail their power and influence.

While it is always an individual’s responsibility, groups like the CDC, the FDA, and the USDA need to more effectively inform the public. Had these organizations tried harder, we might have avoided the current situation where we face $4.9 trillion in annual healthcare costs. Despite its challenges, change is still possible if we commit to making the effort.

In 1965, cigarette manufacturers were mandated to include the label “Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health” on every pack of cigarettes sold. The war against cancer and the tobacco industry did not end there. Laws were enacted to ban cigarette ads on television and radio, with the last cigarette commercial, the Marlboro Man, airing during The Tonight Show on January 1, 1971. Soon, states started restricting smoking in public places. Heavy-duty anti-smoking media campaigns were launched. These measures caused a huge shift in public perception. Tobacco use in the U.S. dropped from 42% (1965) to 11.5% (2023).

Our current medical establishment still cites cigarette smoking as the leading “preventable” cause of death worldwide. They seem to ignore the number of people who die from diabetes, hypertension, or high cholesterol each year. How many people would still be alive if they were simply advised to implement effective diet and exercise changes? Widespread adoption of these lifestyle modifications would not only have prevented countless deaths but would also have drastically reduce the immense, untold suffering and mortality caused by adverse drug effects.

The Health Crisis Double Talk



A person doesn’t fall ill from smoking just one cigarette; the illness results from that unchecked behavior continuing for years. How is this different from our diets and lifestyles? Individuals facing the “health trifecta” typically consume diets high in sodium, fat, and sugar for years before symptoms surface. Massive amounts of time, money, and energy were successfully expended to get people to quit smoking. Why can’t we apply the same level of effort to these other grave conditions?

Cigarette smoking was labeled a major health hazard. Its advertising was curtailed, and anti-smoking campaigns flooded the airwaves. Why couldn’t we apply the same approach to the foods we eat and how we take care of our bodies? Implementing some level of accountability, clearer labels, and increased public service campaigns regarding the benefits of lifestyle changes could empower an estimated 50–60% of adults to make healthier choices, drastically reducing chronic disease. This shift, in turn, could reduce our healthcare costs by approximately $500 billion to $1 trillion dollars annually.

We’ve known since the 1940s that lifestyle changes cure. The data screams: remission is possible without medication. But profit silences the truth. This choice, this decision made by the very people tasked with keeping us healthy, can only leave one wondering if the food industry, Big Pharma, and Big Tech are conspiring with governmental agencies to keep the American public dependent on a dangerous drug-based system while suppressing safe, cost-effective paths to health freedom.

About Dr. Rita Louise



Investigative journalist and bestselling author, Dr. Rita Louise is the Founder of the Institute Of Applied Energetics and former host of Just Energy Radio. She is a Naturopathic physician, medical intuitive and intuitive counselor. Dr. Rita is the author of 7 books as well as hundreds of articles that have been published worldwide. She is also the producer of a number of full length and feature videos. Dr. Rita has appeared on film, radio, television and has spoken at conferences around the world covering topics such as health and healing, relationships, ghosts, intuition, ancient mysteries and the paranormal.