For over 50 years, medicine has waged a misguided war against natural critical sources of health like salt and sunlight while avoiding discussing the real causes of diseases – this is something we have even discussed here on The War Room. Well, because of this misguided war, the dangers of salt are relentlessly focused on despite evidence not supporting them. In parallel, the extreme dangers of consuming too little salt are rarely discussed in the medical field—despite dangerously low sodium being one of the most common conditions seen in hospitalised patients, and chronically low sodium being highly fatal. But, thankfully, in an incredible development,  medical practitioners, activists and policy makers alike are now beginning to ask the right questions about salt.

IS SALT BAD FOR YOU?

The development in salt discourse, as key stakeholders begin asking the right questions on salt, and we ought to begin with the most primary question being asked, being: is salt bad for you? Now, in light of this question, it is worth noting that many people you ask, particularly those in the medical field will tell you salt is bad, and one of the most common pieces of health advice given both inside and outside of medicine is to eat less salt. Over the years, there have been two main arguments for why salt is allegedly bad for you. The first argument states that salt raises blood pressure, and high blood pressure is deadly, so salt is too and should be avoided. Then, the second argument states that: with individuals who have heart failure, eating too many salty foods will create exacerbations of their condition, and as a result, after holidays where people eat those foods more heart failure patients will be admitted to hospitals for heart failure exacerbations.

Now, it is is worth noting that excessive sodium causes these exacerbations because if an excess amount of fluid accumulates in a compromised system (e.g., because the weakened heart can’t move enough blood to the kidneys to eliminate this fluid), it then overloads other parts of the body (such as by causing swelling and edema, which, if in the lungs, can be life threatening). BUT, it is crucial to note that this is because of EXCESSIVE sodium consumption, meaning if you ingest far more than your body needs (typically through ultra-processed foods); and also excessive sodium consumed by a person with an already compromised system, that does not have the necessary means to metabolise the salt.

In any case, because of these two arguments, many in the medical field assume that salt must be bad for you and hence strongly urge patients to avoid it. But, unfortunately, the logic behind those two arguments is less solid than it appears – especially when you consider how it came about.

In essence, since medicine revolves around making money, patient care is often structured to be as profitable as possible. In turn, since recurring revenue is a foundational principle of successful businesses, a key goal in medicine often ends up being to have as many patients as possible on lifelong prescriptions. In most cases, the drugs that are developed and approved have real value for specific situations, but those situations are not enough to cover the exorbitant cost it requires to get a drug to market. As a result, once drugs are approved, the industry will gradually come up with reasons to give them to more and more people and in turn quickly arrive at the point where many of their customers have greater harm than benefit from the pharmaceutical. 

One classic way this is done is by creating a drug that treats a number, asserting that the number has to be within a certain range for someone to be healthy, and then once that is enshrined, narrow and narrow the acceptable range so less and less people are “healthy” and hence need the drug (e.g., this happened with cholesterol once statins were invested). But, as we stated in the beginning of our discussion, the question on whether salt is bad for you, is quickly put to rest when we consider what happens when there is not enough salt in the body.

RE-CONTEXTUALISING SALT: RATHER THAN A CAUSE FOR ILLNESS, IT IS A NECESSITY FOR HEALTH

With this in mind, we then ought to correct the misconception in mainstream health discourse. As we’ve established, the general claim has for the longest time been that salt is detrimental to the human body. As alluded to earlier, salt consumption has been associated with health issues such as high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, and kidney disease. This was part of a broader misconception that the science on food and macro-nutrients was long settled, and thus demands unquestionable compliance. Well, this is actually far from being true – especially when we examine the model that has long been used to dictate to people what healthy eating is – being the food pyramid. You might think that the food pyramid is a work of science that back in the 1970’s, scientists without vested interests, methodically reviewed to determine the healthiest diet, and then presented the food pyramid to the public. Unsurprisingly, this did not actually happen.

Instead, the backdrop to the story of the food pyramid begins in post war 1950’s America, when deaths from competing causes, namely war and infection had drastically reduced. And at the same time, rates of smoking were increasing. As a result, heart disease rapidly became the leading cause of death. And on this backdrop in 1955 President Dwight D Eisenhower suffered a heart attack. He was out playing golf in Denver when he felt what he thought was an episode of indigestion from a hamburger. And later that night, he worked with severe chest pain. So, his personal physician, not realising he was having a heart attack, gave him several shots of morphine and sent him back to sleep. It was only after an ECG was performed after he awoke at 1pm the next afternoon that it was understood that he’d in fact had a heart attack.

This was major news which struck a nerve with the US population. The life of their leader, due for re-election, was on a knife’s edge with heart disease, the new leading cause of death. The President and the American population was gripped by fear so, the hunt was on for the root cause of this deadly scourge. Unfortunately, scientists of the day did NOT seem to pay too much attention to Eisenhower’s heavy smoking. Especially considering that he was reported to be up to four packets a day; and indeed, this was in an age when doctors themselves promoted smoking (courtesy of big tobacco’s concealment of the dangers associated with excessive consumption of their product, while they also used doctors to market cigarettes).

And so, rather than examining the president Eisenhower’s habits, the scourge of heart disease was attributed to dietary saturated fat. But, how on earth did those scientists in the 1950’s come to the conclusion that saturated fat was the cause of heart disease and that ancient food consumed for millennia was supposed to be blamed for a modern disease? In essence, the answer can be traced back to research performed by the Russian Nikolai Anitschkow. It was in 1913 that he published a paper which has more than 100 years later been described as the birth of the lipid hypothesis – the theory that saturated fat can clog the arteries.

Nikolai had demonstrated that feeding rabbits (which are an obvious herbivore) a fat called lard, along with egg yolks or pure cholesterol dissolved in sunflower oil; led to increases in the rabbit’s blood cholesterol levels. And over time, arterial lesions similar to, but not identical to that of human heart disease developed. Now, there was a lot wrong with this study. For one, rabbits should NOT be eating lard anymore than people should be eating grass. But, nonetheless, this research planted the seed from which the diet heart hypothesis was born.

Then, Ancel Keys became almost singularly responsible for growing that seed of poor research into the twisted mess called the food pyramid. In essence, two years before Eisenhower’s heart attack, Ancel Keys had published a widely criticised graph plotting the average fat consumption in various countries against heart disease. In a study of 22 countries, Ancel Keys had actually carefully selected the data of six countries that support his claim on heart disease – which is essentially cherry picking, and was pointed out by the study’s critics. Inexplicably, however, he was able to establish significant influence within the American Heart Association. BUT, by 1958 the American Heart Association with Ancel Keys now at the helm, launched his study (despite its obvious flaws that were pointed out), and this went on to influence what the food pyramid looks like today.

So, what does this mean in light of the propaganda against salt? Well, all that we’ve discussed exposes the superficial nature of the science behind the food pyramid, and subsequently, how ingredients like salt are problematised. In fact, we can see a similar attitude towards saturated fats with salt based on the work of George McGovern. In essence, in 1977 George McGovern chaired the Senate nutrition committee that created the first US dietary guidelines, which advised a reduction in saturated fats and and salt. But, there was not a SINGLE STUDY proving that salt causes hypertension in humans until 1983, which is almost a decade after the dietary guidelines by George McGovern were made public.

But, this means that the prescription behind reducing salt intake, that is is still being used by the WHO today, was not based on studies on studies proving that salt was the cause of high blood pressure in humans; and was rather based on a study conducted on rats that were intentionally bred to be sensitive to salt.

THERE IS A DECEPTIVE TREND IN THE MEDICAL DISCOURSE ON HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE

Meanwhile, there is also a highly deceptive trend when it comes to the medical discourse on high blood pressure, and the medicine used to treat it. In fact, frequently, when you dig into medical myths, you discover that many of the dogmas that underlie a popular drug are actually sales slogans that a marketing company created. Similarly, when you research alleged illnesses, you discover that they were NOT based on scientific fact. For example, a chemical imbalance from low serotonin was never linked to depression (in fact patients who commit suicide are found to have elevated brain serotonin). Also, acid reflux is due to too little acid in the stomach (as acidity gives the stomach’s opening the signal to close). However, in medical school, doctors are taught it is due to too much acidity. AND so-called “sleeping” pills are actually sedatives that block the restorative phase of the sleep cycle, which is why sleeping pills do not produce REM sleep, where the body is rested and performing its restorative functions.

In the case of high blood pressure, when the blood pressure craze took off, there was a rush to bring the blood pressure lowering drugs to market before their benefit was actually proven (outside of a few short term studies which showed a small benefit for people with very high blood pressures). That mindset in turn cemented itself, and so as the years have gone by, without evidence to support it (and contrary data being ignored), the blood pressure threshold keeps on getting lowered and more and more people are being put on blood pressure lowering medications! 

HOWEVER, excessively lowering blood pressure cuts blood flow to parts of the body that can’t function without sufficient blood flow. For example, blood pressure medications increase the risk of kidney disease, while the risk of suddenly passing out (from insufficient blood flow to the brain) is one of the most common side effects of blood pressure medications. And yet, studies have shown that neither is high blood pressure a symptom not a cause of arterial damage; nor is there evidence that aggressively lowering blood pressure saves lives.

So, why is this misconception on high blood pressure still promulgated? First, is money: meaning that research funding is available for these areas (for instance, from the drug manufacturers) hence being a safe area of research for academics to explore. Second is greed, in that this illustrates the “if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail” phenomenon, where the pharmaceutical industry’s  desire to find more justifications for using its products means that it invents reasons for people to do so. And then there is also plain corruption: particularly where the so-called “experts” on guideline panels are paid to create recommendations that result in more and more people taking the drugs, a sadly common phenomenon in medicine.

THE TREND: BIG PHARMA HAS A HABIT OF CHANGING MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR PROFIT

If you recall our discussion on statins and cholesterol, you would note that there is a propensity for big pharma to influence medical standards in an effort to create a market for their products. More specifically, before Statins entered the market, which was prior to 1987, the normal total cholesterol level used to be 300. HOWEVER, big pharma moved the goalpost.

Part of how big pharma moved the goalpost on cholesterol, in order to create a market for statins, is that there was a questionable dichotomy created between good and bad cholesterol. More specifically, cholesterol is generally described as a waxy substance essential for building cell membranes and producing hormones. Cholesterol travels through the bloodstream in particles called lipoproteins, primarily as low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL). LDL, often called “bad cholesterol,” carries cholesterol to cells and arteries, where it can form plaques, narrowing the arteries and increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke. For decades, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol has been commonly referred to as “bad cholesterol” due to its association with increased risks of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), such as heart attacks and strokes. Conversely, high-density lipoprotein, known as “good cholesterol,” transports cholesterol from the arteries to the liver for elimination.

HOWEVER, numerous studies have challenged this claim, including even a recent study involving more than 4 million people across China, which suggests that low-density lipoprotein may not be as harmful as previously thought—at least, not for everyone. Research led by Dr Liang Chen and colleagues reveals a more nuanced picture. They found that while high low-density lipoprotein levels are linked to increased mortality in some groups, they do not pose the same risk for others. In addition, they found that the relationship between low-density lipoprotein and mortality varies significantly based on an individual’s cardiovascular disease risk and overall health status. 

These findings suggest two things: first, the medical industry ought to reconsider the one-size-fits-all approach to cholesterol; and rather opt for more personalised treatment strategies. But secondly, these studies are exposing the fact that the dichotomy between bad and good cholesterol is not well evidenced, and is highly misleading. Furthermore, questions have begun to accumulate about this so-called wonder drug. More specifically, questions around statins have ironically related to the link between Statins, Cholesterol, and Heart Disease.

All this is to say that big pharma has long been involved in the practice of falsifies studies about illnesses, in order to sell a product. They did it for cholesterol and statins, and they have done it for high blood pressure, through vilifying salt, in order to sell patented salt.

WHILE NATURAL SALT WAS BEING VILIFIED, BIG PHARMA WAS DEVELOPING SALT BASED MEDICINE

In fact, when we look at salt directly, as was exposed by the President of Loveworld Inc., the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSv. DD., you begin to realise that while natural, cheap and accessible salt was being vilified, pharmaceutical companies were developing interventions that were based on salt!

This is why it is critical that the US has a Secretary of the Dept. of HHS who is bent on ending the FDA’s aggressive suppression of natural remedies that big pharma cannot patent! It is not just about debunking the falsified science, it is about making people aware of the natural remedies that are available for them to consume in enjoyment, without having to be made a permanent consumer of big pharma interventions!

THE MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IS NOT A SOURCE OF TRUTH

But, part of the problem is that people have been led to think of the medical and pharmaceutical industries as consisting of people with a vested interest in proclaiming what is true. These industries have for long been given an UNDESERVED assumption of credibility, especially when they claim that their actions are backed by credible science, and that their interventions are safe and effective. And yet, these are people who are selling a product; meaning they are people who have an obligation to their businesses first than they do you. Meanwhile, only God is the authority on what is true.

Which is critical to note because while the medical industrial complex was claiming that salt is hazardous to health, the Master Jesus, in Mark 9:50 states categorically that “Salt is good”… and to “Have salt in yourselves”… This is why placing a premium on God’s Word is paramount for everything concerning our well-being. Afterall, God told us through the Prophet Hosea that His people perish for lack of knowledge. But thank God that when we pray in the Spirit as He instructs, He guides us on these matters and more.

THERE ARE CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGES COMING TO THE FDA AND MEDICAL BUREAUCRACY

But, the Church of Jesus Christ has been praying, and this continued to present tremendous changes. For instance, in the second Trump administration, FDA Commissioner Dr Marty Makary has announced MAJOR New Policy aimed at limiting conflicts of interest in the FDA. Dr Marty Makary highlighted that he has presented a new policy limiting who can serve as members on FDA advisory committees, part of efforts to counter the perception that the FDA has been captured by Big Pharma and other industries.

This is to say that in a move to mitigate perceived industry influence and conflicts of interest, the FDA has announced a policy change that restricts employees of FDA-regulated companies, such as pharmaceutical firms, from serving as official members on FDA advisory committees. This policy change is in line with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s commitment to “radical transparency.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso