Vitamins Was and Media Lies

In this episode I look at how media propaganda messes with what we believe and how we see the world. I show how media narratives are often driven by money or power. I dive into three examples of news stories that changed societal perception -but were all lies. These stories, going all the way back to the 1800s stick around for generations, shaping how we think. 

Best of all, I show you simple ways to test for truth—to help you cut through the lies. The episode’s about empowering everyone to question what they hear and dig for the truth with a bit of curiosity and critical thinking.

SHOW NOTES

Quotes:

“Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.” -Eric Hoffer 

Transcript

The American author and moral philosopher Eric Hoffer wrote, “Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.” 

Welcome to The Soul Podcast. I’m Stacey Wheeler. 

That quote lingers, doesn’t it? Hoffer, a dockworker who became a philosopher, saw how we can embrace stories that reshape our reality. Today, we’re exploring how media lies—about health, war, even beauty—don’t just mislead us; they become truths we live by... which guide our lives -sometimes for generations. But the modern world has given us hope; with tools like the internet and AI, we can see through the distortion and reclaim what’s real. We’ll unpack three stories today—vitamins, the Gulf War, and beauty myths—to show how media plants seeds of deception that grow into our beliefs. We’ll also look back at Joseph Pulitzer, whose legacy of media manipulation was was the grandfather the media manipulations that came since... and are still with us. His legacy of lies still echoes. So, settle in, open your mind, and get ready to expand your ability to identify nonsense, before you accidentally make it your truth. 

First – A few case studies to help you understand how lies from the media become our reality... and to help you understand what motivates media to lie.

Let’s start with something familiar: the idea that vitamins are a waste of money... that they're not good for you or do nothing. I remember family members dismissing them at holiday dinners, or in casual conversion when the topic of vitamins or supplements came up. Have you ever heard this -or something similar? That skepticism didn’t just appear—it was planted. And I've got the paper trail. In 1992, a New York Times headline warned that high-dose vitamin E could increase cancer risk. In 1998, Time magazine called multivitamins overrated, even harmful. And by 2000, Consumer Reports linked vitamin A to liver damage. Those warnings hit the American consciousness. Vitamins were first synthesized and marketed as "health tonics" in the early 1900s. The industry was small and regulated loosely under food laws. By 920s-1940s the industry was established. People began suplementing to improve health and avoid illness. As we learned more and more about the immune system over the following decades, new vitamins and supplements were introduced to boost desired outcomes. This was the original bio-hack. 

Jump forward to the 1950s-1960s: Fitness culture started growing. Sales grew to around $200-300 million by the late 1960s, driven by athletes and health enthusiasts.

The industry truly took off in the 1970s, as the counterculture embraced natural remedies, health food stores proliferated and scientific claims about antioxidants gained traction. By the end of the 70's the industry was worth between $1-2 billion. By the end of the 80's it's it was worth between $3-4 billion (depending on how you break down what's included in the industry). It was growing and expanding in a way that the “industry” was becoming more mainstream, with vitamins and supplements being a thing regular people thought about and companies advertised on TV and in print. 

By the end of the 1980s, the market had grown ~10x from the start of the 1970s, with vitamins accounting for ~50% of sales.

But then, in the mid 80s, stories started dropping which seemed to question the effectiveness of vitamins and supplements. Bu the 90s they were hitting harder (with the sorts of stories I listed earlier). People who hadn't taken vitamins or supplements before were starting to think it was a waste of money -and likely even dangerous to take them. After all -”the news” said they were bad. And the news was a trusted source of information. That led to people who felt they were 'well-informed' to tell others not to waste their money, or even chide them for taking vitamins. “I wouldn't take those things if you paid me.” they might say, “Too dangerous.” And there's not much more powerful than the judgment of friends and family, when it comes to altering a behavior.

But here’s the truth: those stories were often exaggerated. Later research showed vitamin E can support heart health, multivitamins help fill nutrient gaps, and vitamin A is only risky in extreme doses. So why the alarm? The 1990s saw supplements surge in popularity, threatening Big Pharma’s control. Many of these articles and stories have been tied to medical lobbies. There was an intent behind them. An intent created by big corporate America, which sowed doubt that still persist decades later.... mostly by word of mouth. Even in 2025, many people avoid vitamins, ignoring science that shows their benefits. Media lies don’t vanish; they shape our choices, our health, our understanding of truth -even our culture. They make us change our view of reality and truth. 

But we’re learning to question what we’re told, and that’s where change begins. 

Now, let’s turn to something heavier—war. In 1990, a young Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah testified before Congress, her voice breaking as she described Iraqi soldiers ripping babies from incubators in Kuwait. President Bush repeated the story six times. CNN and ABC amplified it. Even Amnesty International initially supported it. That story fueled public support for the Gulf War (more than anything else), making it feel urgent, righteous. But it was a lie. She was presented publicly only by her first name, "Nayirah," to supposedly protect her family members still in Kuwait under Iraqi occupation. In reality, she was the unacknowledged daughter of Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's ambassador to the United States. And

Nayirah had been coached by the PR firm Hill & Knowlton, hired by Kuwait to sway America. Years later, further revelations showed Nayirah had not been a hospital volunteer in Kuwait (as she claimed) but was safely in the U.S. during the invasion. The story has been thoroughly debunked. After the war, no evidence of those atrocities could be found. But the damage was already done by news media selling the narrative. The story was horrifying and visceral. Even today, if you ask someone over 45, you can find plenty of people who still believe the story. Once a false narrative is accepted, it's rarely (if ever corrected). After all – media would have to admit they were either: taken in, or that they knew it wasn't true. And those who produced the great lie... what would be the benefit of admitting it? Each of these had a motive. The creators of the lie wanted American backing to go to war. The news media wanted to keep people tuned to their station so they could sell adds at higher prices. You'll see that the so-called 'profit motive' is one of the most persistent and disgusting. Watch for the motive and understand the “why.” 

This tactic wasn’t new. Let’s go back further—to the 1890s, when Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World mastered media manipulation, hyping unverified Spanish atrocities in Cuba to fuel the Spanish-American War. A prime example? The sinking of the USS Maine in 1898. Pulitzer’s papers screamed “Spanish treachery,” claiming Spain bombed the American ship, though evidence later pointed to an accidental explosion. The government leaned into the narrative, rallying public outrage to justify war. The motive? Profit from soaring newspaper sales and power to shape opinion. That incubator lie, like the Maine, didn’t just spark a war; it conditioned us to trust media’s conflict narratives too quickly. Even today, in 2025, we feel that influence—how easily we accept the next “just” war. But we’re starting to pause, to seek the truth beneath the headlines. 

[TRANSITION SOUND: Soft violin note] 

Let’s bring it closer to home—beauty. Women coming of age in the 2000s, remember magazines like Vogue and Cosmo telling them thinness was the path to happiness. Airbrushed models filled every cover, with articles pushing diets and products, all backed by beauty and diet industries. It wasn’t about science; it was all about profit. Once again -the profit motive shows it's evil face. The impact was profound. By 2010, over 30 million Americans faced eating disorders, according to the National Eating Disorders Association. Self-esteem suffered as we chased an unattainable ideal. Those lies linger in 2025, in social media filters and influencer posts that make us question our worth. Eric Hoffer’s insight cuts through: propaganda helps us deceive ourselves. We believed “thin equals joy” because the media made it feel true. Millions of women are still trying to recover from the ideal of not being perfectly thin. But we’re beginning to see our own beauty, to reject the lies. 

[TRANSITION SOUND: Warm cello swell]
These stories hit deep, don’t they? Vitamins, wars, beauty—they’re not just headlines; they’re narratives that shape what we believe about our world, our selves. Joseph Pulitzer, the newspaper pioneer, understood this. His New York World thrived on sensational stories, chasing profit and influence. Later, he created the Pulitzer Prizes, perhaps to rewrite his legacy as a champion of truth. He said, “The press is not only free, it is powerful. That power is ours if we know how to use it.” That’s our work—to question, to seek, to claim the truth that frees us. 
Here we are, in 2025, still carrying the weight of media lies—vitamins dismissed as useless, wars sold as noble, beauty tied to impossible standards. These stories, driven by profit and power, helped us deceive ourselves, just as Eric Hoffer warned. But we have tools to break free. The internet offers raw voices—X posts with Community Notes to verify (at a nearly 60% correction rate... and improving every day), citizen stories, unfiltered perspectives. AI, like Grok, sifts through the noise, checking facts, revealing biases. 

Your work? Don’t accept the headline. Find the original source, to simplify, use AI to question the narrative or meme. The truth is found in your curiosity, in the quiet moment you choose to see take a few extra seconds to ask AI “Is this true.”

Until next time, keep seeking, keep shining, stay true.