Gwen Olsen - Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher:
Full Version of Lecture - Industry's Influence in Medicine: Duped, Doped and Dying in America
Click on Chapters
- Social programming and profiteering through drugs
- What is the real problem?
- The false sense of reality
- What made me speak out?
- Vaccines before and now
- Children on psychotropic drugs
- Mental Illness and disability
- Evidence based medicine
- Fabricated research
- Pharmaceutical Industry
- Where do we go from here?
On December 2, 2004, Gwen Olsen's niece Megan committed suicide by setting herself on fire-and ended her tortured life as a victim of the adverse effects of prescription drugs. Gwen Olsen offers an honest glimpse into alarming statistics and a health care system ranked last among nineteen industrialized nations worldwide. As a former sales representative in the pharmaceutical industry for several years, Olsen learned firsthand how an unprecedented number of lethal drugs are unleashed in the United States market, but her most heartrending education into the dangers of antidepressants would come as a victim and ultimately, as a survivor. Gwen Olsen shares one woman's unforgettable journey of faith, forgiveness, and healing.Interactive transcript
Albert Einstein once said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”
I think that that statement couldn't be more applicable at any other time in history than it is in the world that we live in today. Our planet is in crisis. The human race is in crisis. We are being assaulted and poisoned on a daily basis covertly by the foods that we eat, by the water that we drink, by the drugs that we’re taking, by the electronics that we use, and even the very air that we breathe is toxic to us. And the powers that be and that includes the corporate advertisers would have us believe that were completely powerless to do anything about it because we're not intelligent enough to think for ourselves.
We need somebody else to tell us what's right and what's wrong. We need someone else to tell us how to raise our children, how to conduct our families, how to live in this world. As a consequence we're seeing hundreds of thousands of people that are dying on a daily basis because we have not only been lied to, we’ve been dumbed down and we’ve been doped up by a system that was designed intentionally to control us. As a consequence of trying to control us, they're killing us. So, that's why I have entitled my lecture today Industry’s Influence in Medicine: Duped, Doped, and Dying in America.
Now, the social programmers have gotten us very well acclimated to the problem-reaction-solution. So, that's the way that I'm going to present my information today because that's the way that we've been programmed. I'm going to talk about the problem initially then I'm going to show you the reactions to the problem. At the end, fortunately, we’re going to talk about solutions. Okay?
So, first, let's talk about the amount of money that's involved and what the drug problem is in the United States of America. In 2013, US sales of pharmaceuticals totaled 329.2 billion dollars. In 2014 US sales were 374 billion. Now, the interesting thing about that is there was a record 4.3 billion prescriptions filled in the year 2014 even in light of the economy that we have currently where, you know, so many people are out of work and they don't have the resources, but yet we’re still seeing a 13 percent increase in drug spending. Now, what do you think attributed to that?
Of course, ObamaCare was instituted and so what we see here is that prescriptions that were covered by Medicaid rose 17 percent and that accounted for like 70 percent of the growth in prescriptions in 2014. Another thing that kept the money coming in was the premium pricing that's practiced by pharmaceutical companies. I've listed an example here of a drug that sold for hepatitis C called Sovaldi by Gilead Sciences that cost a thousand dollars a pill or 48,000 dollars a treatment.
Of course we have America's propaganda war on drugs that's been going on since the 1970s, and we really are going to see from my presentation that this is propaganda. Okay? And that we have all of these people that are talking about, you know, the drug problem with heroin addicts, cocaine addicts, and marijuana use where if you look at the new profile for a heroin addict, it used to be a male who was 16 years old, disadvantaged, or the artist type of, you know, singer artist-type person that they were using heroin as their drug of choice. That was the profile of the heroin addict historically.
Now, the new heroin drug addiction profile is male or female, 23 years of age, from affluent households and neighborhoods. Also, they did not have heroin as their initial drug of choice but once they were cut off from their opioid painkillers, then they had to go out and source a cheaper drug on the streets and that's how they end up being addicted to heroin.
We still have marijuana classified as a no-medicinal value Class I narcotic. Even though that it's been legalized as a medicinal product in many of the states here, it's still outlawed federally. Of course, we have our own CIA that is watching and lording over the Afghanistan poppy fields. So, the production has done nothing but increase under the influence and the management of the US corporation. Still, they’re trying to outlaw homeopathy. They’re trying to outlaw certain nutritional supplements. I'm sure that several of you have probably read about where they go in and they do SWAT raids on people who are trying to sell raw milk. Even Amish farmers cannot sell raw milk.
Of course, our kids are the ones. They know that we’re hypocrites, guys. They know that they’re watching us every day pop pills and they know that all of their friends at school. The most popular drugs of abuse these days are psychiatric drugs and painkillers. It's not the illicit drugs that we have the biggest problems within our schools and on our college campuses. It's the actual prescription drugs.
The interesting thing about the marijuana, I've always, you know, tried to stay away from this particular argument and stay focused on my, you know, psychiatric drugs and the things in my experience as a pharmaceutical rep. But in my research, I came across the marijuana patent holder. Patent number 6,630,507, Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants. The holder of the patent is the US government as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services which is a cabinet post under the president. So, that's a little bit of information that might interest you.
And this I would like to read you directly quoted from the patent, “Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This newfound property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of a wide variety of oxidation-associated diseases such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants. For example, limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults such as a stroke and trauma or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and HIV dementia. Non-psychoactive cannabinoids such as cannabidiol are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses.”
So, the next time that you get in to that argument or someone gives you that argument, you know exactly where to go to show them that there is medicinal properties to marijuana. So, there is definitely a political agenda and the pharmaceutical industry is keeping this suppressed because they don't want you to be able to grow medicine in your backyard because you're cutting directly into their profit base.
So, who is the real problem and who is the perpetrator of the real drug problem in the US? Of course, it's big pharma. Right? And let's look at what the US painkiller drug epidemic amounts to.
In 1991, there were 76 million opioid prescriptions. Opioids are those drugs like hydrocodone, oxycodone, OxyContin. They’re all the class II painkillers. In 2013, there were over 207 million opioid prescriptions. The US consumes 100 percent of the hydrocodone. If you don't know what the base plant is for that, it's poppy. So, remember I mentioned that in Afghanistan poppy production had increased and, you know, we’re watching over the poppy fields after we entered Afghanistan and started the conflict there. Also, US consumes 81 percent of oxycodone. So, we are the largest consumer of the opioid drug family. There are over 12 million Americans that are on painkillers without a prescription. So, this is a huge category of drug abuse.
Now, we can directly relate that to drug overdose deaths in the US because drug overdose is the number one cause of accidental death. That's more than all the car accidents, the planes, the trains, whatever kind of, you know, falling off the curb and getting hit by a bus or whatever. All of those combined together don't equal the amount of drug overdoses and the deaths related to those. In 2013 there were over 43,982 drug overdose deaths; 51.8 percent of those or 22,767 of those were from pharmaceutical drugs.
Now, when we talk about mental health drugs in overdose, we see the drugs for mental health conditions were involved in a significant number of pharmaceutical overdose deaths. The category of benzodiazepines -- and benzodiazepines are your anti-anxiety/anxiolytic drugs such as Xanax and Valium. Those were involved in nearly 30 percent, 6497, of these deaths. Antidepressants were involved in 18 percent, 3889. Lastly, antipsychotic drugs were 6 percent of overdose deaths, 1351 people.
So, what are the contributing factors to this problem of Rx abuse? Well, first of all, it's the number of prescriptions that have been written and dispensed. Of course, as you saw in one of the previous slides since ObamaCare has been instituted, we have a larger number of the Medicaid-covered prescriptions. So, you're going to see a larger number of prescriptions written overall because if there is a patient that has insurance or some way to pay for it, they're going to get a prescription for one of these drugs.
Also, there's been greater social acceptability. It's no longer taboo to drug your children. It's no longer taboo to take painkillers or to be taking an anti-anxiety or an antidepressant agent. People are taking them and they're happy to talk about it and tell you that they are on them. There's no problem. And some of them will even sing their praises to the hill that they’ve saved their lives and that they’ve solved their issues.
There's also been a very aggressive marketing campaign by the pharmaceutical industry. I'm sure that any of you know that you can't turn on your television anytime during primetime or look at a magazine that you don't see every other page there's a glossy ad for some pharmaceutical or every, you know, commercial or every other commercial you see someone running through the fields then, you know, playing with her dog and telling you to ask your doctor about this or that. Right?
So, this has created a very broad environmental availability for the drugs because you can go to any household. You can find these drugs in people's medicine cabinets. Their grandparents are taking them. Their parents are taking them. A child gets a sports injury in school, they go in, and they get, you know, a prescription for one of these painkillers. If there's someone that is experiencing a death or some kind of transition, then they’re also going to be prescribed maybe one of the psychiatric drugs, maybe an antidepressant, or maybe anxiolytic, but it's become very broadly accepted and therefore there's a lot of availability for people.
Now, I entitled this No Free Lunch in Sales because you would be amazed at how many doctors think that they're getting a free lunch from a pharmaceutical industry. In fact, there are so many offices when I lived in Austin, Texas I felt like literally a caterer because I couldn't get in to see a doctor hardly unless I agreed to feed him and his staff. Sometimes, that would cost me upwards of 200-300 dollars in order to be able to spend two or three minutes with a physician and that was if they showed up.
I even one time saw an ad in a local paper where they were advertising for someone to work the front desk in a doctor’s office listing pharmaceutical reps provide lunch every day as one of the benefits. So, that's exactly what they're doing in order to get pharmaceutical reps, you know, to have airtime with the physician. You have to pay for it. You have to provide something for them.
But a lot of them feel like pharmaceutical reps don't influence their prescribing habits. It's just one of the courtesies of having, you know, the rep in to educate them and that is not the truth and there could be nothing further from the truth. In fact, statistics showed that drugs that were introduced after 1997 that gained revenues of over 200 million a year, that the average return that was received for each dollar that was spent on a detail rep - and that's what they call pharmaceutical reps as detail reps – was $10.29 . That's huge, people. Look at in comparison, nearly two times the return that they make on investment in journal ads an those journal ads go directly to physicians and influence, you know, the physicians prescribing habits and also greater than a seven-time return on the investment of direct consumer advertising.
So, pharmaceutical reps are making a difference. They don't give them company cars. They don't give them stock portfolios. They don't give them all of the goodies. I mean, I honestly can tell you that there is so much money that is spent and given to pharmaceutical reps that in my 15-year tenure as a pharmaceutical rep I could never once spend all the money I was given in my expense account. Never.
I want to show you some pictures of me and the pharmaceutical industry because a lot of people say to me oh well, you know, “Why couldn’t you make it in the pharmaceutical industry? Is that why you're speaking out because you are prejudice against them because they let you go or whatever?” I'm going to speak for my ego right now because that's what the pharmaceutical industry is all about. It's about ego. I was the best of the best of the best with pharma. I was in the top 3 percent of sales with any company that I ever worked for and you don't stay in this industry for 15 years unless you bring home the money.
Look at the pretty people here. These are classes where I went into training, where they take you into the home office into this fishbowl environment, where you have to dress up every day and you have to practice your presentations, they’re teaching you medical information, and they’re filming you. When you’re on camera, then you have to review it. And it's kind of like a psychological breakdown like boot camp as in the military. It's like they don't feed you well. They keep you up late at night having to work on homework assignments. They get you up really early in the morning. They send the buses out to get you and then they make you stay there for really long days until you're just so broken down and so tired. Then, they build you up and they give you this false sense of bravado that you’re out there doing something good for the world, that you're going to help heal people. Then, those people are let out into the fields and they go out with this false sense of reality that they're doing something that benefits the world.
Look at these, you can tell these are little corporate clowns. In fact, on the top photograph, you can see all of the women, we all have our little ties and everything and you can see the two rebels; the one of them being me who didn't tie their little tie like everybody else's, you know, and then the girl behind me who has a little man’s tie on and she's little bit different. And then of course, we get a little bit more confident. This is the hospital rep training, so now I really think I'm, you know, more professional like I don't have to really follow what everybody else does because I'm moving up in the upper echelons of the sales rep organization. But these are pictures to show you what pharmaceutical reps look like.
And of course, here I am all dressed up and ready to go getting into my company car, the company car that I had that I got to trade out every 60,000 miles or every three years, whichever came first. In all the time that I worked for the pharmaceutical industry, I never paid to change my oil. I never paid for my gas. I never paid for car wash. I never paid for any repairs. I had a little coupon booklet that it told me how frequently I had to go in and have this or that maintenance then done. Then, as I gained tenure, I got automobiles that were a little bit nicer, had more features, and had, you know, other things that made it more amenable to me to produce for the pharmaceutical industry.
Of course, you can see by the way I'm dressed when you walk into a hospital or doctor’s office, the pharma reps will always be the best dressed people in the hospital and in the doctor's offices. Here I am receiving the Pinnacle Award, and I was in Hawaii with our regional manager. That was for being in the top 3 percent of sales for Bristol-Myers Squibb.
So, what made me decide to speak out? What made me decide to blow the whistle so to speak? Of course, you saw in the film it was because of my own personal experience. Not only had I had my own adverse drug reactions because I was the quick fix queen. I believed in the philosophy of popping a pill to lose weight, of popping a pill to go to sleep, of popping a pill to reduce my anxiety. And because I was the quick fix queen, I had my own adverse reactions and I almost lost my life on more than one occasion because I was taking the things that were in my trunk. I was taking the advice of the doctors that I was calling on and they were giving me samples out of their closet. So, I seriously believed in what I was doing until that happened to me and then I lost the most precious spirit and the most precious person I've ever known and that was my niece.
So, it was because of children that I decided to raise my voice and to speak out. When I left, I had no intention of becoming a whistleblower. In fact, I was so unhealthy that, you know, I had my tail between my legs and was grateful to be alive and kind of sulked off to do something else and hope to never look back. I went into the natural foods industry, and that's where I found my own personal health and healing.
So, I want to look at children and what they are in terms of a human commodity to the pharmaceutical industry and please don't think that I'm, you know, being outrageous in saying that they treat our children like a human commodity, but they do. I went in every single meeting that I ever attended when we talked about expansion markets. They talked about the fact that our children were the most profitable and the largest expansion market that was available to the industry.
So, I just like to state for the record, childhood is not a mental disorder. Okay? So, for people that believe that childhood is a mental disorder, I want some of you that are older to go back and think about when we were kids and you know other children didn't want to come out and play with us on the playground and they stayed inside or whatever. We were told they were shy. Right? Now, they have social anxiety and they need to be drugged with benzodiazepines or antidepressants. Okay?
Also, 30 percent of our children are currently on drugs; those ages 10 to 19. They take at least one prescription. Most of them take multiple prescriptions because unfortunately once they get on one of these psychoactive drugs or they get onto a painkiller, then they have such a horrific side effect profile that they end up having to add on drugs to treat the symptoms and the side effects from the first drug that they were prescribed.
Forty-one percent of foster children take three or more mind-altering drugs. This is another area that I believe that the universe led me in so that I could see exactly what was taking place because I volunteered from the year 1995 until the year 2000 as a court appointed special advocate in the state of Texas. What I did was I served as the voice for children who were in foster care and I would go and follow their case and talk to their caseworkers, their families, and their psychiatrists. All of that because I would be the consistent presence in that case because, you know, they have a big turnover in the attorneys that take these cases and in the social workers that take these cases. Sometimes, I was the only person that was there from the beginning until the end when these children would be released back to their families or given to other foster families.
So, as I said, the pharmaceutical industry was well aware of this so they went and they campaigned. They tried to market to parents drugging their children and having educators refer children to be drugged. And what happened? In 2009, children were the largest growth demographic at four times the rate of the general population. They were being drugged four times more than adults were.
Of course the most substantial increases in prescriptions for children in the past decade have been the antipsychotic drugs, the diabetes drugs, and the asthma drugs. As we take a look further on in the presentation, we’ll find out that this is directly related to the categories of drugs, that they are also being prescribed that produce other symptoms so that they get prescriptions and they have add-on therapies in order to combat those side effects as we mentioned.
Now, not only is there a problem in the opioids and the psychiatric drugs with children, but there is also a problem with the vaccines. Again, this was another area that I tried to stay out of because it's so heated, you know. I wanted to focus entirely on the psychiatric problem and just to be a specialist in that particular area. But once you get into the rabbit hole and you really start digging and you find out, you see that all of these things are related.
The problem is that just like in every other area of industry, society, and the military, things are so compartmentalized that it's very difficult for you to get all of the information. It's like you're only given, you know, the information that's needed for you to function in your particular job. So, if it's above your pay grade, you don’t need to know.
So, a lot of times the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, and I have a lot of people to give me flack about that. They say, “Oh, well, you could’ve been too upset about it. You stayed in for 15 years.” Well, literally, they worked me 60/70 hours a week. I had to do cocktail parties at night. I had to do speaking programs. I had to travel. I was a specialty rep. So, I did a lot of conventions and that sort of thing plus there was always a constant ongoing training. So, I really didn't have time to look into the information on my own.
They specifically hire people who do not have scientific backgrounds so that you don't know to ask critically intelligent questions because you have no idea. I was a Liberal Arts major, you know, Spanish and Portuguese. I have a certification in Latin-American studies. I did my postgraduate work in journalism. What did I know about drugs? I didn’t know anything about drugs. I've never taken a science class except for Rocks for Jocks when I was in college, and that was to meet my requirement, you know.
So, I really didn't have that background to be able until several years down the road when I started getting more information, when I started self-educating through journals and doing my own personal research that I started to connect the dots and to see the bigger picture of what was going on.
And the vaccines were the area that I came to that were also culpable as being, you know, a part of this problem of our children becoming autistic, having ADHD, and all of those things.
So, this is what I wanted to show you. In 1970, the recommended vaccine list contained three vaccines because they were combination vaccines. There was the tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis which is whooping cough; polio; and measles, mumps, rubella. There were actually three vaccines because the polio was separate but DTP was a combination as well as the MMR.
Now, let's fast forward to 2014. For the recommended ages of zero through six, they recommend hepatitis B; rotavirus; diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis; the haemophilus influenzae type B; pneumococcal which is for pneumonia; polio; influenza; measles, mumps, and rubella; varicella; and hepatitis A. Now, that's just for ages zero to six.
Now, when you get in into other high risk populations where there are teenagers that are living in dormitories or you have children that have compromised immune systems, they also recommend for ages 7 to 18 the meningococcal as well as the human papilloma virus, that’s the HPV. You may know that particular vaccine right now that's known as Gardasil. You can read and research about Gardasil and they're having our children that are not even sexually active mandated to take a vaccine for a condition, human papilloma virus, which there are over 100 strains, and this vaccine covers two of them. Okay? Two strains. And most of the cases of HPV resolve themselves, 99 percent resolve themselves in over a year without any kind of medication.
So, the risk that's involved with taking the vaccine and the risk-to-benefit ratio does not substantiate getting our children vaccinated with this particular vaccine, and it certainly doesn't merit giving it to our young boys. That's the next expansion population that they have moved into with this particular product.
Is anybody here old enough to know that they didn't use to vaccinate children with flu vaccines prior to 2003? Do you know what the rationale for that was? It’s because children had enough immunity because they had exposure. Right? They were in playgrounds, they were in places with other sick children, and so they felt like they had enough immunity that they weren’t required to take the flu vaccine. So, it was once only recommended for adults. But in 2003, the CDC came forward and said, “Now, all children and pregnant women should get flu shots.” Okay? And the other thing that's important to know about that is this completely correlates with the autism rates that we've seen.
If you look at this chart, in 1975, there was 1 in 5000 children that was diagnosed with autism. You go up to 2012, it's 1 in 88. Then, move forward to 2013, and you see another 30 percent increase. It translates to 1 in 68 of every child vaccinated becoming autistic. That means 1 in every 42 boys and 1 in every 189 girls. Those are some pretty startling statistics, people, and that’s some pretty high risk. Particularly, if you think about the way that the pharmaceutical industry promotes their drugs is supposedly risks-to-benefit ratio. Okay?
Why is it higher in girls than in boys?
I believe that it's because boys have a different metabolism of the drugs. It’s really not 100 percent known but from the research that I've seen, it has to do I believe with the way that boys metabolize drugs.
Also, this information has come forward. There was a CDC whistleblower that came forward last year by the name of Dr. William Thompson. He was a CDC senior scientist. He admitted openly at a press release with a whistleblower lawyer and everything that he and his co-authors had "omitted statistically significant information in a 2004 article that was published in the Journal of Pediatrics concerning the MMR vaccine and autism.” What it suggested was that the omitted data said that African-American males who receive the MMR vaccine before 36 years of age had a 340 percent increased risk for autism.
Now, think about that, a 340 percent increase. If I were an African-American mother, that information would be paramount for me to be able to make an informed decision about whether I wanted my child and when I wanted my child to receive that vaccination, but that information was withheld. The reason that it was withheld was because there's still no causal effect in the United States with autism in vaccines. They will not recognize a causal effect, and what a causal effect is it means that the drug itself is contributing to this disease state. But of course, people in Italy have found a causal effect. So, I guess they're a lot different than we are in the United States because they had found the causal effect and it has been a court decision that was made in 2014.
Now, not only do vaccines cause an increase in diagnosis of autism, but vaccines also have caused an increase in the diagnosis of ADHD. Children ages 3 to 17 now that are diagnosed or labeled - which is the way I would rather put it – labeled as ADHD because it is a fictitious disease. They did fabricate it for drug sales. That is available to find in research. Just Google it up. You'll see that the information is there, but children ages 3 to 17, there were 5.9 million in 2014 diagnosed with ADHD. The percent of 3- to 17-year-olds was 9.5 percent.
The percent of boys 3 to 17-year-olds were 13.5 percent, and again those at a larger population, of course. And I think boys get drugged more than girls and labeled with ADHD. Because think about it, again, when I was growing up, the boys, you know, not only do we have sports and we had recess where they could go out and they could burn off steam, but they had shop class where they could work with their hands and, you know, do other things because boys learn differently than girls do. It’s harder for boys to sit still, to listen, and to have data thrown at them because that's just not the way that they’re socialized. Also, the percentage of girls 3 to 17 was 5.4 percent.
So, we have to give our educational system a little bit of the blame in this as well. So, when we’re starting to change things those of you who are educators, this is one of the statistics that you can take to people and that you can talk about because 99.9 percent of the children who are referred to be diagnosed with ADHD are sent by educators, by counselors, and by teachers. Not doctors and psychiatrists. By people who are having difficulty controlling large classrooms of children who don't get to have recess because why? Because they're concerned somebody’s going to sell them drugs on the playground. How ridiculous is that? Because they’re going to be lined up at lunchtime to go into the nurse’s office to get their ADHD drugs or to get their, you know, antipsychotics or whatever it is that they're being prescribed.
Also, I'd like you to know that the ADHD diagnosis or label is also a causal effect, you'll see, of the amount of stimulant amphetamines and methylphenidate prescriptions that we've seen over the last few years. Again, you can see a direct correlation. As they label more children ADHD, they sell more amphetamines and methylphenidate, and this acts in the brain exactly the way that cocaine does.
Now, I have to tell you. If you have a child or if you were a person that just, you know, didn't have a lot of clarity or energy or whatever and you did a line of cocaine, - and for those of you who come from the 60s and 70s, you may know what I'm talking about – you might feel better. In fact, you might feel like you're on top of the world for the first day, the first week/two weeks. But come back and see me once you've been doing cocaine for a daily basis in six months, in one year, or in six years, and I'm going to tell you that your mental function will deteriorate, that you are now an addict, that your brain has changed, and that you are completely different personality than you were before you started taking cocaine. The methylphenidate, that's the Adderall and the Ritalin. Those are just the one molecule away from being cocaine. It does the exact same thing to the brain structure. It really is a brain-damaging therapeutic, and this is not something that the pharmaceutical industry doesn't know.
So, look at this chart. From 1991 until 1999, how many on the left? That's the millions of prescriptions that were written for this particular category of drugs for this diagnosis. Of course, it's not only methylphenidate and all of the stimulant drugs, but there are also other psychotropic drugs that the children with these diagnosis are given. You can see this was a survey that was done by the CDC on just a random, you know, amount of children. They asked them how many drugs that they were on. As you can see, if they were on any drugs, 6.3 percent; one drug, 4.5 percent; two more, 1.8. Also, the type of psychotropic drugs that they were taking. Antidepressants was 3.2 percent, ADHD drugs 3.2 percent, antipsychotics 1.0, etc. So, you can see that these directly correlate to the amount of diagnoses that we see of children with ADHD and autism.
So, if this wasn't a problem, if it wasn't created by or a causal effect of the drugs that we see that are being given to our children, then we shouldn't see a huge variation in the history of mental illness in the present-day mental illness statistics.
I don't know how many of you were here to attend Robert Whitaker's lecture, but he also goes over the state that’s why I won't, you know, spend a lot of time on it. But I just wanted to show you the history of mental illness.
In 1955, there were 570,000 people that were in mental hospitals. Now, they weren’t all mentally ill. Some of them had end-stage syphilis, dementia. They were nursing home patients. That used to be where they were housed. Historically was they would put them in institutions. But then, in 1996 to 2000, we saw 73 percent increase in mental illness diagnoses in adults and a 50 percent increase in the diagnoses of mental illness in children. That's a direct correlation to the activity of these drugs because the longer term that children are on these drugs, they become disabled.
So, what has that done? That's created a whole new class of people that are disabled. There is one in every 50 American children now that are labeled as being bipolar; that's 2 percent of all children and that’s a disease that even historically they said only 1 percent of the adult population had. But yet, 2 percent of our children are now diagnosed as bipolar. But guess what? Eighty percent or more those kids have been previously treated with stimulants or other psychiatric drugs. Gee! I wonder if there is a causal effect with that. The pediatric forms of bipolar, by the way, are also more severe states of mixed emotions and that means that they're more difficult to treat and they’re more difficult to manage the symptoms because children seem to have more severe side effects.
Again, I love these depictions in this pictures because, you know, we have the zombie apocalypse that we’re being programmed to hear about, you know. I truly believe this is the zombie apocalypse that we've been set up for, because how many people do you see in our society particularly children that you look into their eyes and the lights are on but nobody's home? They’ve like lost their affect. You know, they can’t smile. They can't feel. They can't think clearly. This is what you get is that zombified state.
So, when we look at mental illness and disability, in 1987, 1.25 million people on government disability were on disability for mental illness; however, when we get up to 2009, 4+ million people were now on government disability for mental illness. That means they can't work. They can't go to school. They can't function properly socially. You know, they're having difficulty in life. That's the reason why the disabled.
Another thing that I want you to be aware of is that if a child receives one of these diagnoses, then they’re eligible for disability and the schools that they attend often get a stipend for that because they're harder to educate. Also, if your from a school system like where I was in Texas where they have testing that they have to do annually, they can eliminate these test scores of these individuals that have these and raise their rankings. Okay? Because they're labeled disabled and so therefore they don't have to include their test scores. So, very frequently, there were children that were just bad students that would get a diagnosis and that puts money in the pocket of the school system and that also gives them a better ranking in terms of what their numbers look like for academic testing.
So, in 1967, how many children were on disability? 16,200. Fast forward to 2009, over 600,000 children were on disability. That’s a 35-fold increase of the number of kids that are disabled because of these drug categories. That’s a total of 100,000 new recipients annually and its continuing to rise on an annual basis.
So, as I said before, it created an entirely new category of disabled people which was never in existence before and that's the ages 18 to 26. So, you have students that are graduating from high school that can’t go on to college because they can't perform academics that they need to perform in order to attend or you have young adults that are barely out of school or out of college and they can’t work. They can't support themselves. They cannot have normal family lives because these drugs also affect sexual function and they cause dysfunction. So, therefore, these are disabled kids that go on to be disabled adults that influence our society in very profound ways.
So, right now, if you're not outraged, then you're paying attention. You’re asleep. Okay? Because I'm showing you the information that other people are not going to show you about how to connect the dots about how this problem came about and what their agenda was behind it. You can do one of two things. You can seek the truth or you can hide your head in the sand about it. Either way. Both of them are going to require a little digging.
Now, we’re going to get into the science fiction portion of my presentation, evidence-based medicine. That’s what we talked about. The risk-to-benefit ratio that we talked about previously which pretty much is completely ignored by the industry even though they tout that that is what they're based on. I'm going to show you just a few trials, and I'm going to run through them very quickly because this is clinical data that's already been covered by our previous speakers, but I think it's important to include it here for people who haven't seen this information before. I just want to show you some of the trials that are considered to be landmark studies. So, these are the trials that the clinical decisions are based on and that all psychiatrists are aware of as well as several of the internal medicine physicians and family practice doctors. So, the MTA trial.
The MTA trial was an ADHD study that compared stimulants to behavioral therapy. What the result was that the end of 14 months, those on the drugs were doing better. Well, guess what happened? They went out, they took that endpoint, and they touted that in the doctor's offices. You got major journal ads and you had even CBS, NBC, ABC News, you know, who were parodying all of this grand landmark study and all of this positive information about how kids were doing so well on these drugs. Their reading skills had improved. They were easier to manage.
So, at the end of the three-year marker - because this was an endpoint that they didn't really go out, advertise, talk about, or do any advertising on – and that was that the medication use was a significant marker, not of beneficial outcome but of deterioration. You never heard about that in the news. And I bet you that they didn't go in and they didn't talk to the doctors about it either. So unless, your physicians were industrious enough to go out to do their own due diligence in their own research and to look into the clinical data, they were not aware of this information for many, many years.
So, participants that were on the trials who were using meds in the 24- to 36-month period showed increased symptoms. Those on the medications had a higher delinquency score. They were shorter and they weighed less than their nonmedicated counterparts. So, what does that tell you? That tells you that these kids were also being affected, that their growth patterns were affected, because these kids have developing kidneys. They had developing livers. They have developing brains. So, this indicates that if they’re shorter and they didn't weigh as much that they were probably having effect to those major organs as well.
Now, if we look at after six years with this particular trial, the results were exactly the same. Continued medication use was associated with worse hyperactivity. Oh wow! Gee! That's the same information that we heard from Dr. Whitaker and from Irving Kirsch about the antidepressants and some of the other categories of drug that the people were on them long term, that the symptoms that they had been given the drugs for actually became worse.
So, maybe if a child was a little bit anxious because, you know, they couldn't study well for tests and they were concerned about, you know, getting good grades in school - because that's so important to so many families these days that you get good grades and that you accept your programming in school - that they would need to be on maybe an anxiolytic or an antidepressant that was prescribed as an anxiolytic. But what they saw was that those patients might've been initially just anxious and then all of a sudden these children are severely anxious and they’re having panic attacks. They feel like they're going to die. They give some cardiovascular symptoms, heart palpitations. You feel like you’re going to have a heart attack. I should know because I was a three-year benzodiazepine addict and I write about it in my book, Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher.
Children on medications had a greater overall functional impairment. So, the landmark study that was used to go out and to expand the patient population of these drugs into our children actually showed them that these drugs were damaging our children long term and yet they hid those clinical endpoints and didn't discuss them with physicians.
Now, let's move on to the early onset of schizophrenia trials. These were children 8 to 19 years old that were on antipsychotics for early-onset schizophrenia. Only 12 percent responded; that’s 14 of 116 patients on the trial, and they were actually on medications for one year. Over 88 percent failed. So, what other category did we see besides diabetes and asthma drugs that was like the number one increase? Antipsychotics. But yet, the data doesn't support an increase in antipsychotic drugs in our children. So, if there was a risk-to-benefit ratio that was being examined, there is no way that a parent would put or a doctor that wasn’t influenced by his own indoctrination, they would not put their kids on antipsychotics.
Listen, folks. I sold one of the older antipsychotics called haloperidol (Haldol) and I saw firsthand what these drugs do to people. I saw how they created a little shuffling gait in the poor little people that were, you know, in the nursing homes, in the VA. Sometimes, they would have tardive dyskinesia symptoms. One of the symptoms was “fly tongue” where they would just involuntarily stick their tongues out, you know, and they couldn't control that or throw their arms or legs up in the air. I had always thought that these were a side effect or part of the mental illness problem, and then I realized, “Aha! That’s not mental illness. That’s a side effect of the drugs.” So, these people can't even sometimes go out into public because children will tease other children. You know, they can't control their bodies. They can't control their tongues. So, they get a lot of social, you know, pushback because of that and repercussions.
So, we move on to the antidepressants. Again, this is a category that was previously discussed by Irving Kirsch. He's done some excellent research. I have to say that I was more than thrilled to be on a panel with Gabriel Cousins, Irving Kirsch, and Robert Whitaker the other night because those are some of my biggest mentors. It really warmed my heart to be on stage with them because their data and their courage was what encouraged me to be able to come forward, to speak out, and to take the stance that I've taken against these.
So, let's look at antidepressants. Again, that's why I wrote my book, Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher, because I felt like I had to put the data out there. It originally started out as an email to my family trying to explain to them why my niece had committed suicide because I felt like I had a moral obligation. I did it for her so that she would not be seen as a mentally defective individual. I wanted my family members to know what had happened to her.
As I began writing my book, the information began to pour out of my soul onto the computer. One week turned into two months. Two months turned into six months. Six months turned into nine months. Before I knew it, I had produced a book that became a bestseller.
So, I took to the road and I was uplifted and supported by a wonderful group of chiropractors. So, to my surprise, people lined up to come and hear me speak and to come and hear the information that I had because these chiropractors supported me and they took me all over Canada and all over the United States. They brought together groups of people and their patients, and they gave me the audiences for me to be able to deliver my message.
Of course, I made it into some major media. As you saw, I was on The Dr. Oz Show. The reason I'm including this is because I just like to mention that Dr. Oz is doing a very good thing but you have to understand that these programs and these people have very big advertising dollars that are being pumped into these programs by the pharmaceutical industry.
So, the first time that I was on The Dr. Oz Show, I was just an audience member and I was sitting in the front row the way he, you know, often refers to people in the front row and have them add their two cents. Well, that was very heavily edited. I think I got my 15 seconds of fame that time after going to New York. Then, the second time that I was on The Dr. Oz Show, I appeared with the American Psychiatric Association president and Dr. Keith Ablow who was the Fox Media psychiatrist who did their medical section. That show has never aired. I have a very good idea and I'm not going to take credit for that, but I remember that when I made the comment that I made about the drug whores that I think Dr. Oz almost fell off his chair.
So, what are some of the side effects of antidepressant drugs? Insomnia, nervousness, agitation, and violence. If you don't believe that antidepressants cause violence, just google up all of the school shootings that had taken place in the last decade and you will find that 99.9 percent of the participants in those shootings were on antidepressants or antipsychotics or stimulant drugs. Also, suicidal ideation which of course was the area that I felt like I needed to come forward and tell people that in the initial clinical trials that all of this information was initially revealed and that it was suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry.
Also, homicidal ideation because I mean we just didn't see people prior to that going in and you know shooting. When people committed suicide historically or they would go and think about this, they get in the garage, you know. They'd hook up an exhaust into the car, maybe go to sleep from carbon monoxide poisoning. They may take an overdose of drugs to go to sleep or they may slit their wrists and go into, you know, the bathtub and bleed to death or something. But we didn't see the level of violence that we see now.
Now, when people take their lives, they hang themselves or they kill themselves and every family member and the dog. I mean, it's just like the violence is incredible. So, there has to be something different taking place, and the difference that you will see if you do your research is that these people were on these drugs and that's the reason why they become violent. They become homicidal.
The drugs also have blunting effects. They make you extremely apathetic like you may not want to go out and stand on stage and talk to people about problems. You may not have the voice to raise and speak out if you're on one of these drugs.
Discontinuation syndrome. So, what they call it is discontinuation syndrome because that sounds a whole lot nicer than severe withdrawal side effects. Doesn't it? So, that's the way that the pharmaceutical industry coach that terminology so that it sounds little bit more pleasant than withdrawal because people who try to get off antidepressants, very many will experience severe side effects. In fact, sometimes it's impossible for people to get off their drugs if they have been on them for very long periods of time because there is a change in the brain chemistry that causes them to, you know, deteriorate over time and so it's very difficult once they're addicted for them to withdraw safely.
This was my biggest surprise actually of when I spoke out is the number of people that actually contacted me to try to get assistance in getting off of their drugs because they had gone to every professional, they had exhausted their resources, and they couldn't find anybody else that knew how to successfully help them quit taking their drugs. Of course, I'm not a doctor, so I wasn't qualified to do that. I set out looking for alternatives for people and looking for facilities and other providers that knew how to do this safely for individuals. I’ve spent a lot of my time in that particular research.
Again long term, these products cause brain shrinkage. Then, there were also the warnings that were put out by the FDA. In October 15, 2004, the FDA ordered manufacturers to add a black box warning. That is the most severe warning that you can put on a drug label. They warned that antidepressants could cause suicidal thoughts and actions in children and teenagers, but that was the third hearing before that finally took place.
Then, on May 2, 2007, the FDA ordered manufacturers to update the existing black box warning to include warnings about the increased risk of suicide in young adults, ages 18 to 24. Too bad they hadn't done that before my niece committed suicide, but still I'm going to tell you that it doesn't stop at age 24. I attended that FDA psychotherapeutic committee, and I spoke and testified before the FDA and gave them my information. I did it covertly because I listed myself as a family survivor and they didn't see me coming as an ex-pharmaceutical rep. So, they put me in the first 10 speakers. We rocked the house.
Now, if you don't take anything else away from what I've given you today, I want you to have this warning and I want you to share it with every single person that you possibly can that you know that either is on antidepressants or has a child on these drugs and that is that you cannot cold turkey off of these drugs. It may cost you your life. It is imperative that you titrate the dosage slowly which means you reduce the dose slowly just so that they can have more time that the brain can recuperate, that the body can detoxify, and so that they don't have the severity of withdrawal symptoms that they would if they were too cold turkey off the drugs.
Of course, I always advise people to get medical supervision. It may not be easy to get a psychiatrist to agree to take people off their drugs. Okay? Because first and foremost, psychiatrists have a medicalized model, so therefore they no longer do psychotherapy that's usually left for the psychologists. So, there is a huge push to keep them prescribing drugs because if the drugs are proven to be ineffective, what are all the psychiatrists going to do? Think about that.
So, get medical supervision. If you can't find a psychiatrist that’ll help you get off the drugs, then go to an alternative MD or an integrative care MD. That’s usually somebody who can prescribe medication but also knows about alternatives that they can make other recommendations besides drugs. Also, be patient. Tell people to be patient with themselves and do not get overzealous in doing it. It usually didn't take them, you know, two or three weeks to get to the condition or the state that therein. They're not going to get better in two to three weeks either. So, they need to be persistent and they need to really take care of themselves during this process.
Also, antidepressants cause miscarriages. There was one Canadian study that showed a 68 percent increase in miscarriages in women who take antidepressants; however, they are still recommended to women that are pregnant to preclude postpartum depression. Also, birth defects are huge and people that are pregnant and taking drugs in 2005. The FDA warned doctors about a 35,000 person study that found pregnant women who were on Paxil were twice as likely to have a child with birth defects as antidepressants. And then GSK also entered into a confidential settlement with nearly 200 families who claimed that Paxil cause congenital birth defects.
So, moving on to the antipsychotics. Those are that category that I also contributed to another book with several co-authors. Robert Whitaker was one of those called drugging our children. I highly recommend that you get this book and read it. I don't believe it's out there because I didn't tell them to buy any, but you can get it online if you'd like to in Amazon.
The side effects of antipsychotics include endocrine issues, weight gain, diabetes, increase in blood glucose and lipids, and male children actually grow large breasts. I'm not talking about just a little bit of extra breast tissue. I'm actually talking about large breasts that - can you imagine - an adolescent male that's starting to develop breast at school. I mean, my goodness. What does that do to the psyche and into the child's?
Did I skip something? Oh, yes. They also cause excessive sedation. The involuntary tics that we talked about where people have involuntary body movements, that's also the tardive dyskinesia. They can increase depression and anxiety, and they also are responsible for suicidal ideation.
The most substantial increases again that we spoke of earlier for Rx’s in children in the past decade again were antipsychotics, the diabetes drugs, and the asthma drugs. Hmmm. Does anybody notice anything? That the number one increase category has a side effect that they'd have to take the number two increase category? Do you know what they call that in the industry? Add-on business.
Then, Zyprexa. There were thousands of lawsuits that are currently pending for Zyprexa for the following weight gain, increase in blood glucose, increase in blood lipids, diabetes, and abnormal development of breasts.
Seroquel. Over 26,000 lawsuits for Seroquel-induced diabetes. In April 2009, then was when Seroquel received the approval as an adjunct therapy for treatment-resistant depression, and I loved that diagnosis in particular because that puts the onus on the patient and not on the drugs. Oh, it’s your fault you’re not responding to the drugs. It's not that the drugs don't work. Okay?
So, now, we’re not going to take you off your antidepressants because that would impact our bottom line on our antidepressant business. We’re going to make it required that you stay on the drug that's not working and we’re going to add, again add-on business, to another drug category the antipsychotic drugs. What do you think that does to the side effect profile? It makes you even more toxic.
So, not only do we have, you know, this lack of real evidence that the clinical trials have shown that the drugs work. We also have people that are actually fabricating research out there. I just want to quickly move through that and show you. There was fraud at the CDC uncovered that we showed you earlier with the NMR, the gentleman who came forward and showed a 340 percent risk of autism hidden from the public. Then, I want to show you what the comparison data is. I'm not telling you how/what to think. I'm just asking you to think about this issue. And that is there were 300 cases of measles in the US in 2014, 97 percent of those were shown to be imported meaning that the people had traveled abroad somewhere and contracted the measles. US population figures are 316,148,990 people. So, do your math. The chance of contracting measles and apparently you have to travel abroad is 0.00009 percent. Remember, it’s not that measles are not guaranteed to kill you. I had measles and survived it. I had chickenpox and survived it. I had rubella and survived it. In fact, I have a wonderful immune system because of it. Because those are the childhood diseases that make us have better immune systems.
That’s it. I'm not kidding and the data is out there and so that's what I'm trying to say, is you need to look at risk-to-benefit ratio and you need to see what the risk is in actuality to what the risk is of them taking the drugs.
So, Dr. Scott Ruben was another case. I'll briefly go through him if you'd like to google him up because I’m going to run out of time. He was a former chief of acute pain at Baystate Medical Center. He was convicted of health fraud. He received grants from drugmakers but never performed the studies. He fabricated patient data that later was published in anesthesiology journals for pain meds. Remember what problematic drug category I started with? Painkillers? There were 21 papers that were published in journals between the years 1996 and 2008 in which Ruben made up some, if not all, of the data.
Pfizer gave Ruben five research grants between 2002 and 2007. He was a member of the company's speakers’ bureau, and he gave talks to other doctors about Pfizer drugs. Ruben published studies regarding Bextra, Celebrex, Lyrica, and Vioxx. One of his studies also claimed that antidepressant, Effexor, could be used as a painkiller. By the way, they also expanded that into women with menopause.
So, if you think there are any conflicts of interest that are taking place here, you need to think again. Dr. Joseph Biederman was also a well-known psychiatrist who single-handedly popularized the bipolar diagnosis in children. In 2008, the congressional investigators charged Dr. Biederman for failure to report 1.6 million in income from pharmaceutical companies. Now, I'm sure that was just an oversight on his part. In 2007, Dr. Biederman was ranked the second highest producer of high-impact papers in psychiatry overall throughout the world with 235 papers cited, a total of 7048 times over the past decade. I'm sure there's no conflict of interest there.
But, what do we do? We need to hold pharmaceutical companies liable and that has been happening. I'm going to go through this very quickly because again this is information. Google it up. You know, pharmaceutical companies fined and then expect to open a can of worms because here's the larger ones – we’ll go over those quickly. GSK was fined 3 billion in 2012 for off-label promotion of their antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin. What is off-label promotion? That means it isn't indicated for that particular disease state but it is legal for a doctor to prescribe for anything that he deems fit. It's just not legal for the pharmaceutical company to promote the drug for an indication that it doesn't have. They do that backhandedly in many ways, and one of them is with their opinion leaders. Well, they will get a doctor that will go out and meet with other physicians and say, “Oh, hey! I’m getting great, you know, results with this particular disease with that drug even though it isn't indicated.” And that expands their indications.
In 2009, Eli Lilly paid 1.4 billion in fines. Again, that was off-label marketing of Zyprexa, their antipsychotic. Johnson & Johnson paid 81 million in criminal fines in 2010 for off-label marketing of Topamax and psychiatric indications. Do you see a pattern here? Also, they paid 2.2 billion. We’re not talking small money here. We’re talking large amounts of money, but this is chump change to a trillion-dollar industry. This is a cost of doing business for them.
So, 2.2 billion for off-label marketing of their antipsychotic Risperdal. Also, there was alleged J&J government kickbacks to purchase recommended J&J drugs including Risperdal in nursing homes. I have a great story about that in my book, Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher, about how I was encouraged to sell Haldol to nursing-home patients and how there was a patient that was lost because of my zealousness in doing that. Johnson & Johnson says it believed that its conduct was lawful and appropriate.
AstraZeneca in 2009 also reached a 520-million dollar settlement over to whistleblower lawsuits over the sell and marketing of again their antipsychotic, Seroquel. Pfizer received in 2009 a 2.3-billion fine for off-label promoting Geodon which is another psychiatric drug and then their two painkillers, Lyrica and Bextra.
Abbott, another company I worked for in addition to J&J and Bristol-Myers Squibb, 1.6 billion paid in 2012 for off-label promotion of Depakote for mood disorders. BMS, which was my other employer in 2005 paid 450 million and also they discovered accounting fraud. And then in 2007, they were fined for off-label promotion of Abilify, again another antipsychotic drug.
So, you see that they’re really abusing the particular psychiatric drug category. Why? Because there is no medical evidence required in order for a doctor to prescribe a psychiatric drug. There’s no blood test. There’s no urine test. There’s no CAT scan. There’s no medical evidence that's required in order for that person to get a diagnosis and then to be drugged.
So, my question is - where do we go from here? Well, the first thing we need to do is we need to address the underlying motivation. We need to address the bribes, the collusion, and the cover-ups. We need to hold these companies accountable. As individuals, we need to make sure that our representation does that as well. We need to address the misinformation and disinformation campaigns. Maybe we need to lobby to have pharmaceutical reps removed from the doctors’ offices. Maybe there should be an independent organization that is educating doctors about these drugs. Also, government lobbying efforts for mandated treatments where they’re trying to pass laws, where you are mandated to vaccinate your child or you’re mandated to psychiatrically drug your child. We need to address those. We also need to address the fraudulent clinical research that's taking place.
And then of course, the disease mongering where they make something up. You know, like GERD or ADHD where they actually have a drug category that's, you know, requiring a diagnosis in order for them to be able to sell it, and then they make up the disease state. If you think that I'm not telling the truth about that, you need to go and do some research around that as well and you'll see that there are a lot of things like PMMD (premenstrual mood disorder) didn't exist before Prozac lost its patent and came out with a drug for that. It was just Prozac in a purple and pink pill.
Also, direct consumer false advertising needs to be stopped. There shouldn’t be television ads telling us to ask our doctor about anything. We are only one of two countries. New Zealand is the only other country in the world that allows pharma to directly advertise to consumers.
Also, we have to look at our program consumerism. We have to take responsibility and put our money where our mouths are. Money talks with these people and that's what you have to do. Withhold your money. Okay?
So, here's some food for thought. I’m pretty much out of time so I’m going to better run through this quickly. If the US has 5 percent of the world population and uses 70 percent of the world's pharmaceuticals, what does that tell you? The third leading cause of death behind cancer and heart disease is iatrogenic death. That means death by medicine. That's very significant. Also, there were over 106,000 deaths due to prescription drugs annually and you can read that in Barbara Starfield's report.
Drugging is a social control mechanism that’s used for unruly children, prisoners, used in residential treatment facilities and nursing homes. Again, as I said, there are only two countries in the world that allow direct consumer advertising.
The international community is openly questioning our medical treatment of children. There will be a time that we will look back in the future and we will be ashamed that we did this to our kids. So, it behooves us to take a look at this problem now.
Also, just as there was a cultural change that was required regarding smoking, we’ve got to make a paradigm shift to get children off psychotropic drugs. We’re crippling our future by committing millions of lives of children to a lifetime of chemical dependency.
In a billion-dollar industry as I said before, million-dollar fines are just chump change. They do not mean anything at all to these people. They put these kitties aside when they have drugs that come out anticipating that there will be lawsuits and so they’re going to have a certain amount of money that they have put aside specifically for these lawsuits. And the loss of life unfortunately is just the collateral damage. They expect a certain number of patients to die on these drugs.
So, what can we do? You’ve heard this before. You have to be the change that you want to see in the world. Right? So, we can self-educate. Do your own due diligence. Get online. If you're prescribed a drug, before you go to the pharmacy and you fill that prescription, get online and Google up not only the name of that drug but then put in the search engine behind it side effects and controversy and then hold on to your hat. Remember, I said this, where there’s smoke in this industry, there's fire. So, do a little bit more research and get educated about this before you decide to fill that prescription.
Be your own health advocate. Stop handing your power over to figures of authority. Take personal responsibility for your health. We have been acculturated to give our power away so that we are more easily controlled. You have got to stand up and be responsible for yourself, for your families, and for your children.
Also, you have to be proactive. Your body is an engine you need to move it. You need to exercise. You need to take care of yourself by eating the proper foods. If we are what we eat in America, we’re all fast, cheap, and easy. And we have to manage our stress. Stress is one of the biggest factors for disease, and that's the reason why cortisol is called the death hormone.
We also need to nurture our relationships. We need to be more compassionate. We need to care about our families, about our neighbors, about our friends. We have to stop looking at our differences and the diversity in society and start connecting with one another. We are all part of the human family.
You have to be here now, be present, be grounded, and be in your body so that you can be the spiritual being that you are sent here to be. You are not here by accident. You chose here to come here just as I did because I had a mission. You have to simplify your life, people. We have been programmed to consume. If you don't believe that we’re programmed to consume, think about on 9/11. When President Bush came out, what did he tell us we could do to help? “Go shopping!” I almost fell off the couch. Go shopping! That’s what your solution is? Make more money for the corporations. No, consume less. Decide that you don't need a new phone every two years, that you don't have to have all the latest fashions, that you don't have to live in a 4000-square foot home, and that you don't have to drive a new model car. You can do better and you can change the world by making a choice with your money not to support these people.
So, again, you must be the change that you want to see in the world. So, what can you do as groups? You can form a community of like-minded individuals. You can explore sustainable alternatives for food, water, and energy. You can eliminate the support of power structures designed to limit human potential, and I don't care if that means government education - if you want to home school your kids because they're being forcibly drugged - then the onus is on you if you go ahead and do it because I've told you this information. You all now share a moral obligation with me to disseminate this information, and you can no longer say you don't know this because you do.
Also, you need to nurture your community bonds through local decision-making and through sharing of resources with one another. Things may get hard in the future and that's the time when you need to reach out, help one another, and bond in a community way.
So, because I'm a person that walks my talk, I sold my big house in suburban Austin, Texas. I sold all my big furniture, my grand piano, and two of my automobiles. I packed up all of my belongings in a 44-foot container, and I moved to a permaculture community in Costa Rica. Here I am with my husband. I took my son, my two cats, my two dogs, and moved into the middle of the jungle. We have a biodigester that bio digests all of our human waste and produces our methane gas. We have solar panels that produce our electricity. We have clean water in the rivers that run around our property. We grow 70 percent of our food in organic garden that we share. We have tilapia ponds. I'm standing here by one of our tilapia ponds where we raise tilapia and freshwater shrimp. We also have the biodome where we have our gardens and we come in. Every Monday, we get a share of our fresh produce and our greens, and we share that in our community so that we have fresh foods that are locally sourced that we know are clean for bodies. This is the kind of nightlife that I now enjoy with my neighbors around the fire, and this is the traffic jams that I have to deal with because this is on the road to a farmer that lives very close to my house.
I now have a new mission. I have moved on because what we focus on expands. We are the creators of our reality. So, I have chosen to move on to the solutions to this problem. I have created a new business called the Mental Alchemists, and we are holding retreats in Costa Rica so that you can come and experience what it's like to be next to nature which you can get a red pill conference and get the truth but you can also be close to God and nature and you can also enjoy the benefit of clean air, clean water, and clean minds.
This is my old website. If you want any of the information or want to refer people to good information and resources about the drugs and the things that we’ve talked about, this is one way of doing so and I highly encourage you to go to gwenolsen.com and see what I have to share there.
Again, I make my living now as a writer and a speaker, and so I would ask for your support in buying my book, Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher. It is self-published, and I have to sell a certain number of copies every year in order for them to keep producing it. Also, if there is anybody who knows of a good publisher or translator that might put it out in Spanish since I live in Costa Rica, I would really love to get that information from you. It is out in French, but I haven't read it in French because I only speak Spanish, Portuguese, and English.
So, I want you to know that we live in a free-will universe. If you haven't thought about that, you have to consent to this stuff being done. Okay? We talked about the fact that the planet’s in crisis and that the human population is in crisis. If we don't speak up and use our voices, if we don't step into our power, we have given our tacit consent for these things to happen.
So, I want each and every one of you to repeat after me if you are inclined to do so. “I do not consent to the destruction of the human race nor to that of our planet Earth. We are the ones we had been waiting for and we are here to change the world.” That's right. Because you know what? Sometimes, you have to be your own hero.
So, I would like to ask you all to be true to yourselves. Step into your power. Put aside your fear-based thinking because there is nothing to fear but fear itself. You truly are a magnificent spiritual being here having a human experience, and together we can change the world. So, go forth and be a force of the awesome. Thank you.