The real truth about pharmas from a sales rep who worked there.

Just google "Gwen Olsen's videos" and you can find her videos that talk about how big pharmas are hiding the truth about benzos, ADs and APs. Some of them are on Facebook as well. Good hunting. Bets

I like her for spreading the word. But she came off a high dose of xanax cold turkey and healed in six months. For that, I'm annoyed. I'm almost 4 months from an effin 3 week as prescribed tailspin. Its madness!!

I like her for spreading the word. But she came off a high dose of xanax cold turkey and healed in six months. For that, I'm annoyed. I'm almost 4 months from an effin 3 week as prescribed tailspin. Its madness!!

 

 

Some people are just lucky I guess. I'm sorry that you are not one of them.  Madness indeed! BTW, where have you been?

Suffering in silence lol.

I wonder if they can get her for defamation of character, you know how those assholes are,,good for her

Suffering in silence lol.

 

 

:(

I wonder if they can get her for defamation of character, you know how those assholes are,,good for her

 

Well, she's being doing the for more than 10 years, and no company has sued her yet. That's because the big pharmas will have to go on the stand and tell the truth. If the word truth is in their vocabulary....Plus, I bet there are a lot of former sales reps who can stand up and shout loudly.

These are very powerful videos - thanks so much!! At least there's one lone voice who knows the real truth about the madness of psych drug prescriptions.

Unfortunately, Gwen Olson is quite tainted by her association with Scientology, and all of this should be taken with a grain of salt.

Unfortunately, Gwen Olson is quite tainted by her association with Scientology, and all of this should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Did not know this! I get so mad when I get accused of being a Scientologist if I make any comments about the risks of psych drugs.

 

As an aside, my dad's cousin was a pharm rep and has confirmed to my dad that the reps give the doctors their continuing education credits. Given the amount of laws that exist trying to prevent conflicts of interest between doctors and products (anti-kickback laws, stark law, etc.) I'm not sure how this all squares up. I guess because it's just "education" and not the doctors flat out "endorsing" different drugs, it's technically okay. But it seems like quite the conflict of interest to me.

 

Many salesmen lie/fib, so it's no surprise to me that some of these reps lie about the dangers of the drug - or maybe just are ignorant.  Ugh.

Unfortunately, Gwen Olson is quite tainted by her association with Scientology, and all of this should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

I didn't know this. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Those people find a good way to hide who they really are. She made a fool out of me.

Benzogirl and Xerxes,

Gwen Olsen is not a Scientologist, she made the mistake of accepting an award from the Scientology crowd for her work in exposing big pharma, now everybody associates her with them.  I don't think she has made a fool out of you or anyone else but that's just what big pharma would like I'm sure.

Good point, Ringo and JayJay.

Big pharma will stop at nothing to get their products out there. Tsk. Nasty business, this "health" stuff.

 

And Xerxes, if a doctor prescribed a grain of salt, I'd run the other way.

 

Iggy

I like the drug rep on youtube who said she was told to have unwilling doctors try new drugs on their worst patients. Then if they improved it would be good for all. So this reluctant old doctor agreed. When the rep came back the nurse asked how she could show her face in the office. Seems the doctor's worst patient was his mother who died from the meds. I am amazed that no doctor has had problems with benzos and a family member. I think they just don't recognize the adverse reactions like my oncologist couldn't.  Uncontrollable crying should be a good clue. I cried all the way through appointments and no one said anything. Maybe they are used to patients crying from the benzos so they think it is okay.  I saw 8 doctors in 3 hospitals and no one suggested that it could be lorazepam or any drug causing my problems. ERs and Mental Health workers will not override your main doctor's orders. You are wasting your time to call 911. I just had an expensive ride to the ER.

Interesting....I watched Gwen's video and some other pharma reps blowing the whistle on the drug company tactics.....the grass movement on this is going to slow...people are being harmed!!!

Here is Colin's point of view about Gwen Olsen.

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=50658.msg683524#msg683524

 

I myself, got the impression Ms Olsen knows what she is talking about.

Scientology or not.

Here is Colin's point of view about Gwen Olsen.

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=50658.msg683524#msg683524

 

I myself, got the impression Ms Olsen knows what she is talking about.

Scientology or not.

 

Thanks for posting the link, Morreweg, but I have posted more detailed explanations here (across several posts through the thread):

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=91192.0

 

Gwen Olsen was involved with CCHR (a Scientology front-group). The problem is that Scientology is apposed to (they wish to ban the practice of) psychiatry, psychiatric (and psychological) counselling, and all psychoactive medications by 'religious doctrine'. Further, they would like to replace psychiatry with their own brand of spiritualism. CCHR is Scientology's attempt to obfuscate and put a respectable face upon their aims. A lot of people people have been caught out (duped) by Scientology. Peter Breggin was once associated with CCHR, and although I'm no fan of his, he did, long ago disavow his association with CCHR because of CCHR's association with (ownership by) Scientology. I take his disassociation on face value. Another example: Howard Brody, duped into appearing in a CCHR video. He reacted quickly and posted to his blog about what occurred:

 

http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2008/11/public-announcement-regarding-new.html

 

http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2009/01/living-up-to-worst-expectations.html

 

There have been many others duped (and misrepresented) by CCHR and Scientology.

 

Gwen Olsen has not disassociated herself. She has not disaccepted her award from CCHR. Whyweprotest claims that Oslen was on the CCHR board. Further, though a third-party, Olsen passed along the following comment to me:

 

CCHR gave me the first real platform on which to [advance my cause and crusade] and I don't regret my brief affiliation with them.

 

The problem is that CCHR is wholly owned and operated by Scientology. Olsen has protested very strongly about being labelled as 'a Scientologist', but she continues to accept the CCHR award and has not disavowed (nor regretted) her association even at her own website. As I have said before, I'm sure Olsen will have some valuable insights from her time as a drug sales rep., but her credibility is seriously compromised by her association with CCHR. CCHR are dishonest brokers of information.

 

I do not intend to write any more about this here. Really, I've said just about everything I have to say about this subject in the post I linked at the opening of this message.

Oh dear, some of these old threads are really hot, quite amusing.

by the way, your search function must be superior Colin,

my one just came up with what i posted.

I think that beyond their association with CS, CCHR just goes unreasonably far in their blanket condemnation of nearly all mental health docs and nearly all pharmaceuticals. There are a lot of problems with the way we approach pharma, especially in America, but suggesting that we throw out the baby with the bathwater after a century of vaccines, antibiotics and cheap/effective cures for common maladies, just strikes me as inane. All three of those things may have their own associated problems and/or be overused at this point, sure. But, having, for instance, dealt with some pretty unpleasant intestinal parasites recently which seem to have been very easily and painlessly killed off with drugs... I wouldn't want to have to rely on 18th century medicine to deal with that problem! I'm sure I could have achieved the same kill rate using wormwood and clove oil, and I'm equally sure that it would have been comparatively unpleasant.

 

The problem I have isn't with drugs as tools, it's with seeing them as the only tools, especially in the case of hardcore psych meds as they relate to the fairly mundane day-to-day life stresses for which they are often prescribed...

Oh dear, some of these old threads are really hot, quite amusing.

by the way, your search function must be superior Colin,

my one just came up with what i posted.

 

Advanced Search >> search terms: gwen olsen >> By user: Colin >> 'choose a board': I deselected unnecessary categories and boards.

 

The search function is not great, but I can usually tease out of it what I seek.

Oh dear, some of these old threads are really hot, quite amusing.

by the way, your search function must be superior Colin,

my one just came up with what i posted.

 

Advanced Search >> search terms: gwen olsen >> By user: Colin >> 'choose a board': I deselected unnecessary categories and boards.

 

The search function is not great, but I can usually tease out of it what I seek.

 

Blimey, i never knew this, thanks for taking your time to explain.

I think that beyond their association with CS, CCHR just goes unreasonably far in their blanket condemnation of nearly all mental health docs and nearly all pharmaceuticals.

 

Well, of course. CCHR/Scientology opposition to psychiatry (and psychoactive medicine) is based upon religious/cultic dogma. So, they are not interested in genuine dialogue. When groups associate with CCHR (Citizen's Commission on Human Rights) where 'their interests intersect', they do several self-defeating things: they give credence to religious dogma which seeks to outlaw psychiatry simply because it is contrary to dogma; they promote an agenda which seeks to remove the freedom of individuals to take charge of their own medical care*; they poison the discussion, where any genuine criticisms of psychiatric practice are easy dismissed as 'Scientology dogma'**.

 

* Ironic, given the (often) legitimate discussion/criticism about mental health patients being prevented from determining their own health care choices. Taking away these choices (because of religious/cultic doctrine) is diametrically opposite to self-determination and 'Human Rights'. I know that a discussion about mental health patients taking charge of their own health care is complicated, but removing health care choices (for anyone) because religious doctrine was allowed to form part of the debate is so very wrong.

 

** The vast majority of people will have nothing to do with Scientology or any group with any association with Scientology. When discussion is 'unfairly' dismissed as 'coming from Scientology', if the individual or group has indeed associated or aligned him/her/itself with Scientology/CCHR (or other SC front-groups), they have only themselves to blame for being 'dismissed'. In fact, the criticisms are probably fair and justified. If a group is willing to align itself with an organisation such as Scientology/CCHR, they do no care about what is right, only about achieving their goal.

 

Anyway, I agree with you, xerxes: throwing out the baby with the bathwater is asinine. General medicine has improved over many centuries (even millennia) and continues to do so. Psychiatry is relatively young - a little over 100 years. Many psychologists, psychotherapists, and psychiatrists too, feel that psychiatry has lost its way over the past few decades, going backwards rather than forwards. The solution is honest debate and discussion, not knee-jerk 'ban psychiatry' reaction. I have read (by their own admission) that some psychiatry reform groups have 'loose associations' with CCHR where 'their goals coincide'. This is very shortsighted for those groups, and creates more problems for anyone else interested in discussion about psychiatric reform and improvements.

 

I did say I wasn't going to write anymore about this, didn't I!?

Thanks for the info Colin, I knew that Scientology was pro psychiatry and meds when Tom Cruise insulated Brooke Shields for taking a anti- depressent for post partum depression. 

Anti psychiatry

I'm going to chime in here because I have a different view on modern medicine, especially when comparing "general" medicine with "psychiatry." Just my own view (and I'm not a Scientologist, just a mental patient for the past 30 years). Also, I want to address the issue of the pharma companies, as it seems this was the intent of the OP.

 

Comparing "general" medicine with psychiatry is a false equivalency. Illnesses such as infections have scientific studies and research to show that certain microbes or parasites cause the infection. Then the medications were created to kill the parasites.

 

However, we still don't know what causes mental illness. The chemical imbalance theory is just that - a theory. And the first drug discovered to treat schizophrenia back in the '50's was discovered by accident. No science involved. And from my own experience with antipsychotics, they don't stop hallucinations - they just make you so drowsy, you simply don't care.

 

Theories about serotonin and dopamine became quite popular in the '90's, but this was due more to advertising the fact that "depression may be a result of a chemical imbalance."

 

Ever seen a commercial for an antibiotic? Of course not. It's not necessary (also, they're generic so there's no profit in it). For mental illness, the chemical imbalance theory had to be  marketed in order to sell the drugs (keep in mind Eli Lilly's financial status in the 80's - they NEEDED Prozac to sell).

 

And they did a superb job of finding the right people to sell it to - the folks writing the DSM IV. The DSM IV was published in 1994, five years after Prozac came out and right at the time direct-to-consumer ads became legal in the states.  The below is taken from a study investigating the pharmaceutical companies' influence over the DSM IV, which is the manual used in diagnosing mental illness:

 

 

"Of the 170 DSM panel members 95 (56%) had one or more financial associations with companies in the pharmaceutical industry. One hundred percent of the members of the panels on 'Mood Disorders' and 'Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders' had financial ties to drug companies. The leading categories of financial interest held by panel members were research funding (42%), consultancies (22%) and speakers bureau (16%). (Source: Financial Ties between DSM-IV panel members and the pharmaceutical industry.

 

I'm not "anti" or "pro" psychiatry. I'm just someone with pre-existing depression who was placed on Prozac and then when I became manic, a doctor determined (with no test) that Prozac had "unmasked a mental illness that was already there." And 30 years later and more than 12 doctors later, I've gotten the same diagnosis. And unfortunately for me, I've been unable to come off the drugs. Yes, the "medication discontinuation syndrome" that GlaxoSmithKline was sued about - it's real. It's not mental illness.

 

Where's the science behind that? No one would dare take antibiotics for 30 years based on that type of data. And yet we expect the mentally ill to swallow very toxic drugs for decades based on this type of information. Something is very wrong here.