With the exception of alt-medicine nutjobs, I think this is a very popular opinion.

I just learned that this is an unpopular opinion. In my head, I can't imagine how someone would think that a thoroughly tested medication that was made with impeccable precision in a lab is not considered safer than a "natural remedy" that legally can't even claim it treats anything specific because it would be a lie. If that natural thing worked, we would call it medication.

I have to be missing something. Can someone please explain to me (1) what is a natural medication and (2) how it is better/safer than a synthetic/isolated medication made in a lab?

Like so many other things, context matters. In some cases isolates and synthetics are not as effective or safe. Some substances are either not as effective or not active at all without an adjunct/adjudivant. However, pretty much any common medication is indeed safer as an isolate/synthetic.

A potential counter example would be willow bark for an analgesic. The plant doesn't contain acetylsalicylic acid but the prodrug salicin. However, the concentration of salicin typically found in willow is too low to be of significant use. It still works despite this though because of the flavonoids and polyphenols in the bark augment the analgesic and anti-inflammatory action of the salicylates produced by salicin metabolism. This actually provides a broader range of action than aspirin, while having a much better side effect profile, notably lacking risk to the digestive tract.

Then, you can look at foxglove (aka digitalis). I had a neighbor growing up that suffered from cardiac arrest caused by digitalis poisoning from handling (and likely eating) foxglove as a child. He lived but had permanent brain damage. However, digoxin extracted and purified from foxglove is incredibly useful for treating atrial fibrillation in CHF patients.

Where it gets really cool to me though is taking a step back and looking at biological/microbiological manufacturing processes and the impact of "superfluous" chemicals at that point. For example, pu ehr tea goes through pretty complex fermentation and genetic tests have found species of fungi that produce mycotoxins of concern. However, in the presence of chemicals found in tea leaves, production of said toxins is suppressed below the threshold of detection. This results in drinkable tea with potentially beneficial chemicals from plant, fungal, and bacterial origins.

Gonna have to downvote you on this one but only technically. The problem is our limited knowledge of effects of everything in every mixture. We may know a specific molecule has X effect but are unaware of how Y help regulate it and Z boosts its effectiveness and L protects against its negative effects. For whatever reason we see natural sources as having these other factors which if we understood them better we could 100% emulate but they are complex and its hard to account for all variables. lab research depends on limiting variables as much as possible.

I agree for most things with some exceptions. For example, when you have a flu/cold taking some herbel tea, citrus and honey are good natural remedies that help manage symptoms.

It's often better to do that than taking medication that suppress symptoms. Those symptoms (particularly fever when in acceptable levels) are your immune system working to kill the virus.

But in general replacing medication with natural alternatives is just a bad idea imo.

I tend to go for natural options if I have a choice. Feels better.

But there is absolutely a point where natural won't do and I'm aware of it and the above gets overrulled. In face of more serious issues, the strenght of non-natural medicine can't be denied.