Response to the FB discussion (link)
This is an excellent and timely topic—actually, several questions wrapped into one. If even a trained pharmacist feels confused by the endless claims about supplements, nutrients, and health advice, imagine the situation for the average person constantly bombarded with contradictory information and marketing.
“I wanted to ask you what your opinion is on dietary supplements? Especially about what they call vitamin D, and the promotion that is made for minerals, trace elements? I am a Pharmacist in Greece, I know that all of these are chemicals, I am confused by the fact that they have a lot of promotion even from alternative doctors while we all know that their production is in the hands of big pharma.”
This is not just a valid question—it is a crucial one. I offer the following scientific perspective, which I hope helps clarify the confusion and cuts through the noise.
People today are overwhelmed with health-related input from four distinct areas:
- Medical science – which promotes the use of chemicals, calling them medicines.
- Pharmaceutical science – dealing with similar chemicals under the label pharmaceuticals.
- Nutritional science – promoting nutraceuticals and supplements, essentially more chemicals.
- Actual science – namely, chemistry, the foundational science of atoms, elements, and molecules (i.e., chemicals).
For clarity, I divide these into two groups:
- Science-based (real): Chemistry and its principles, grounded in atomic and molecular structures.
- Non-science or fake-science: Medicine, pharmacy, and much of modern nutrition, which largely operate outside the rigorous framework of real science. These fields often rely on assumptions, trends, or clinical trials that lack experimental controls due to biological variability.
Here lies the core problem: many disciplines not grounded in actual science have been mislabeled scientific. Most so-called experts in medicine or pharmacy do not study or practice chemistry. Their conclusions often come from narratives, consensus, or statistical guesswork—especially clinical trials, which are notoriously difficult to control due to the unpredictable nature of living systems.
The COVID-19 episode illustrates this confusion well. Claims about the virus and its vaccines were presented as “science-based,” yet not a single experiment has directly shown isolated viral particles or mRNA molecules in the final vaccine products. Despite this, massive global claims about efficacy, safety, and mechanisms were made. From a chemistry standpoint, these are not just unproven—they are baseless. And if this is the case with COVID, one must question the scientific foundations of all prior viral theories and vaccines. They, too, may be based more on belief than verifiable evidence.
A similar confusion has plagued public health for decades. Take cholesterol, for instance. Eggs were once demonized as dangerous due to their cholesterol content. Now, the narrative has flipped—eggs are no longer the villain; sugar is. Has science changed? No. What changed were opinions, not facts. These shifts were never rooted in hard chemistry but in popular belief and selective data. Today’s anti-sugar campaign, much like the old anti-fat one, risks pushing an entire generation into malnutrition—while creating a profitable market for pharmaceuticals and supplements.
Amid this confusion, two new movements have emerged:
- Nutritional fundamentalism, promoting raw and “anti-processed” foods.
- Terrian theory-inspired health fads, which equate all chemical processes or additives with toxicity.
While well-meaning, these approaches can become fanatical. Anything labeled “chemical” is considered dangerous. Ironically, these same critics overlook the fact that all life, health, and nourishment are entirely chemical. From vitamins and minerals to sugars, fats, and proteins—everything our body needs is made of molecules.
This brings me to the core question: Are supplements, like vitamin D, useful or necessary? The answer is yes—provided we understand that they are chemicals, and that’s not a bad thing.
Chemicals are not the enemy. They are the basis of all life. Our bodies are made of them. We depend on chemicals like carbohydrates, fats, amino acids, and vitamins to survive. The only issue is quantity and source: moderation is key, and ideally, we should get our nutrients from fresh, whole foods. But when deficiencies arise—and they do—supplements are a rational and effective solution.
Vitamin D, specifically, is essential for bone health, immunity, and cellular function. Deficiency can lead to serious health problems and is easily detected with a blood test. In such cases, supplementation is not just helpful—it is necessary.
Unfortunately, the production and sale of such essential chemicals have been monopolized by pharmaceutical companies, turning basic health maintenance into a commercial venture. Ideally, such supplements should be available from standard chemical suppliers, with better quality control and transparency—not marketed through the medical-pharma complex.
In conclusion, if you want clarity, turn to real science—chemistry. It’s not as complicated as it’s made out to be. In fact, understanding basic molecular science can free us from fear-based health messaging and help us make rational, science-based choices for well-being.