The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any country in the world [yet] consistently ranks near the bottom of high-income nations for life expectancy, chronic disease burden and preventable deaths. While many drugs are lifesaving and essential, prescription medications are now recognized as the third leading cause of death in industrialized countries, behind only heart disease and cancer. Research consistently shows that up to 80% of chronic conditions, including cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and certain cancers, could be prevented or significantly reduced through natural health approaches such as nutrition, lifestyle change, supplements and other preventive interventions. If this is the case, why are these approaches not more central to chronic disease prevention and care? Health outcomes ... are shaped by who writes the rules, who controls the market and by whom health information is controlled. Natural health is constrained at the level of evidence, where money determines what qualifies as "science." In 1991, about 80% of industry-funded clinical trials were conducted in academic medical centers; by 2004, that figure had fallen to 26%, replaced by for-profit research organisations contracted by drug companies. This shift has untold impact: Study designs, publications, regulations and medical education reflect pharmaceutical interests, leaving natural therapies " without comparable capital " unable to produce the forms of evidence regulators, insurers and clinicians are structurally conditioned to demand. Following the Myriad case, naturally occurring substances are largely excluded from patent protection, leaving high research costs with little legal protection. Without intellectual property protection, investors see little upside, research dries up and innovation slows. Combined with regulatory capture and heavy pharmaceutical lobbying, control of money and markets systematically prioritises pharmaceutical over natural health and substances long before consumers are offered a real choice.