Yes, many diseases, etc are caused by things other than diet. If I fall off a ladder and shatter my bones a natural diet isn't going to fix my bones or my pain.
On the other hand if you do not have any diseases then eating a healthy diet is better than taking a handful of vitamin and mineral pills.
Something of a silly question to be honest. A bit like asking if walking is better than flying - I wouldn't get in a plane to get from my living room to my kitchen but I wouldn't walk from the UK to the USA. Pharmaceuticals are designed for specific purposes, to treat, prevent or lessen the symptoms of medical conditions. A healthy diet is entirely different and there is absolutly no rational reason to present the two things in compariosn or opposition.
Most of drugs are for specific purposes... if you asked the question in different way like If vitamin pills are better than eating fruits and vegetables, it'll sound better
Best option is to eat a nutritious diet, but use drugs to treat specific things. Natural is not a very good description. What do you mean by it?
I dont agree with many of the arguments that dissociate nutrition from drugs. Life expectancy was shorter primarily because of infant mortality and horrible hygienic practices at the time the life expectancy in developed countries was 35-40 years of age. Furthermore, I wouldnt exactly say that people in northern Europe ate natural foods during January. They must have used salt preservatives or canning to extend the shelf life of food. Until the time that Pasteur was middle-aged (~1870 or so), people didnt even believe in germ theory. There are clear cases of mandatory drugs (i.e. anesthetics, antibiotics after organ transplant, etc.), however, it goes without question that a significant quantity of drugs currently used today are essentially placebos that would be unnecessary if people were not overweight, not sedentary and did not eat primarily processed foods. You cant go wrong with a nutritious diet. With global transportation, one is able to buy tomatoes and lettuce in January in Minnesota, USA and one should. However, one should keep it in context and take books that promote strictly vegan diets or strictly low fat diets as a cure-all for the common cold with some suspicion. Many natural foods (i.e. garlic, onion, honey) have antibacterial activity but food can not be used to bypass the requirement of good sanitation. Furthermore, your diet wont help you if you handle uranium without protection or eat dioxins. Nutrition only goes so far. Of course, the question of whether a drug could help you in this scenario comes into play.
There is a very rational reason for comparing the two. Especially when cancer medicine is toxic, and known to have a high propensity for death. Ailments such as diabetes and coronary artery disease can due to poor health habits. Common colds have been treated with vitamins alone.
I doubt anyone would argue that, so long as, you eat foods packed with the minerals and vitamins in the pills.
Specific purposes has nothing to do with the fact diet and exercise have a lot to due the ailment in the first place in many instances.
Evidence has shown that vegan diets can reverse heart disease, some cancers, diabetes, and a no-brainer of America's epidemic, obesity. Other diets that are not necessarily vegan have also shown promise. I'm not entirely sure what those diets encompass though. I'm by no means even willing to consider a vegan diet. I like meat, milk, and eggs too much. Considering health care is costing tax payers trillions of dollars a year, while, eating a specific diet that has lots of supporting evidence suggesting its effectiveness costs the tax payers a simple doctor's visit and a few lab tests as opposed to monthly prescriptions, surgeries, and numerous visits to specialists. What's so bad about encouraging this behavior to patients? I maintain a salubrious diet and am active. If I was to ever become plagued with something that required medicine for the rest of my life, I would strongly reconsider my stance though.
Cure-all diets should absolutely be taken with suspicion. I find food a lot less threatening than antibiotics though. Food doesn't have mercury added as a preservative (something not uncommon until recently). Sanitation has nothing to do with this. Of course people can get sick from eating in unsanitary conditions. Personal responsibility for the sanitary practices should be understood. I would not argue some people lack the basic know-how of what proper sanitation is though. Maybe it should be taught alongside nutritional guidelines. Of course refraining from toxins should be a forefront to a diet.
I do find the feeding of antibiotics to food animals very disturbing. I just sampled my first home grown pig today. He was grown without hormones and antibiotics. Sure was good!!!! I also grow my own vegetables, eggs, chickens and turkey. Come late summer my cows will be ready to eat.
These are still not reasons to present a general healthy diet in opposition to medically proscribed drugs though. Cancer treatment can be highly invasive and damaging (but then so is cancer at the point such treatments are considered). You can't treat cancer with diet alone though it can be a preventative factor. Similarly, diabetes and heart disease can't be treated with diet, though the symptoms can be elevated and again, it can be a preventative factor. Nothing cures the common cold but being general healthy (including vitamin intake) will aid the body in reducing the risk of infection and, if it does happen, minimising symptoms. The point is that it isn't an either/or choice between healthy diet and medical drugs. Everyone should follow a generally healthy diet (though most of us don't) and if we did, we'd be generally fitter and healthier and thus less likely to suffer illness and injury. Regardless of that, some illness and injury are inevitable and, when they occur, carefully considered, managed and controlled medical drugs are a perfectly reasonable aspect of treating symptoms and providing cures.
There are some people that have been afflicted with cancer, heart disease, and diabetes that disagree with everything you just posted. Pharmaceutical companies are in business for profits. They are not in business to help you or me. Thousands upon thousands of people die each and every year from properly prescribed FDA regulated medication. The common cold can be treated with food and or vitamins without the need for antibiotics.
There are people with these conditions who think they can be cured with crystals, magic water or praying to the deity of their choice. Their opinion doesn't make it true though. All companies are in business for profit (including the ones selling vegetables). One way pharmaceutical companies make profits is by producing medical treatments which actually work. There are side effects and some of them can be fatal but there would be a hell of a load more fatalities is everyone stopped using all medicines. Anyway, your blinkered attacks on pharmaceuticals still hasn't demonstrated why they should be replaced by a healthy diet rather than augmenting one. I'm afraid you've only served to demonstrate your ignorance on the subject here. The common cold is caused by a virus so nobody would proscribe antibiotics for it. There are no cures for the cold - in healthy people, it is a short lived largely harmless infection which you sit out. You can reduce the effects of the symptoms using a whole variety of things, some pharmaceutical and some not. Having had a healthy diet will inevitably help too, though waiting until you're suffering is probably too late.
