The world believes that improper diet is the primary cause of disease. The official journal of the German Nutrition Society, "Diet Review," estimates that the annual cost of medical expenses exceeds 100 billion marks. It argues that even with significant efforts to prevent disease, these costs cannot be significantly saved, at best only alleviating the suffering of the illness.
The German Nutrition Society arrived at this estimate based on the results of a "Study on Diet-Related Diseases and Their Treatment Costs." The research report meticulously lists all the required expenses for various treatment measures based on different disease causes. This seems reasonable, yet a question arises: under what circumstances is a disease considered "caused by diet"? In this study, all cardiovascular and circulatory disorders were attributed to the consequences of improper diet, and it was emphasized that these diseases are preventable through dietary improvements—even in patients over 90 years old! Furthermore, other diseases are also considered related to diet, such as arteriosclerosis and various cancers, and are believed to be entirely influenced by diet. If, as the study requires, the cost of treating cavities is counted as "the cost of treating diet-related diseases," that might be understandable. But can all treatment costs for oral diseases and all conceivable gastrointestinal diseases be indiscriminately lumped together? Even the cost of treating a hereditary disease is included in these figures. If autoimmune diseases like Type I diabetes are added, it would not be difficult to surpass the already unbelievable 100 billion mark.
In the cost calculation, the executors completely failed to consider that some diseases are caused by other factors, such as congenital diseases due to genetic inheritance. Yet they still claim that 65% of lung cancer cases could be prevented by eating carrots daily, while the impact of smoking on lung cancer is comparatively minor... They themselves often make mistakes when calculating percentages. There was a case where "diet was held responsible for more than 100% of a certain disease." Not just embarrassing, is it? Professor Harald Forst of Frankfurt University can only scoff at this nonsense: "It is certain, and needs no explanation: diet leads to death! Because everyone who is well-fed will eventually pass away. Conversely, those who do not eat or drink at least do not die from it."
This argument—that improper diet leads to illness—is being questioned, not only for the claimed degree of its causation but also for the correctness of the diagnoses. If a person in their 90s dies from old age, but the doctor easily diagnoses the cause of death as "arteriosclerosis," is that not enough to raise doubts? There are other more embarrassing examples: many patients die from failed surgeries or postoperative complications, yet doctors would rather record the death as "due to heart failure" than specify the cause as their own surgical failure. How wonderful it would be if nutrition experts could define all these diseases as diet-related earlier! Then, patients could have long been living happily on whole wheat bread, small red carrots, skimmed milk, and the freshest, most tender vegetables.
The root of this fallacy lies in a silent conspiracy of silence. If most nutrition experts believe a disease is caused by diet, and they rely on their "assertions" to make a living, then the disease is officially recognized as being caused by improper diet. For the same reason, at psychology conferences, it is unanimously agreed that most diseases are caused by psychological factors; in the circles of microbiologists, one can hear that not only the flu and AIDS, but also diabetes, arteriosclerosis, and heart attacks are infectious; meanwhile, environmental medicine experts confidently declare that the increasing number of diseases is caused by environmental degradation; furthermore, many patients are particularly willing for their illness to be called a "disease of civilization" or a "rich man's disease."
"Rich" not only means eating more, eating better, and living longer, but also means disease. Almost all typical characteristics of wealth are related to some so-called "civilized" figures: the number of traffic driving licenses, the density of doctor's clinics, the sales volume of dog food, the number of color televisions and garden gnomes, the number of school dropouts, the level of medical care, gasoline consumption, waste disposal, and the scope of taxation. However, these figures are not taken into account in diet studies. Driven by current diet fads, we have found the root of disease: it is the so-called "deficiency in excess" that is to blame for heart attacks, and the same for other diseases! Do we desperately diet and lose weight, and be picky about our food, because today, we in industrialized countries feel subconsciously guilty for living better than people in all past eras? Are we inflicting punishment on ourselves by seeking guilt in happiness? Eating always means joy, and the refusal of joy is a severe corporal punishment—is this punishment used to express our sense of unworthiness of happiness and wealth? Obsessing over diet is the pathogen of modern "diseases of civilization"!
If the number of patients with breast cancer or stroke is statistically on the rise, it is somewhat frightening. But are these figures real? Is it just the diagnosis of a conservative doctor, or because we today are old enough to contract these diseases? Thinking of those who died "young" several hundred years ago, how terrifying is their "short" and uneventful life! In any case, these fears make us think of death. So we resolutely declare war on the modern causes of death. Perhaps the joy of "victory" can temporarily replace our fear of heart attacks, Alzheimer's disease, or cancer, at least until experts create new fears for us, until a new form of death appears, which is of course caused by our modern life... As soon as one disease is "conquered," another new, absolutely fatal disease emerges.
It seems you have no choice but to take poison.