As many know, my wife of 20 years filed false claims against me of violent abuse against her one unforgetable day in August of this year.
Molly, my wife, did this in order to acquire a tactical advantage in a divorice she clearly wants that I was completely unaware of until she filed a retraining order against me that prevents me from having any contact whatsovever with my daughter as well, whose name is Hayley.
My wife told her free army of legal professionals that she suspects that child abuse was occuring by me against Hayley. This particular claim is far more absurd than the abuse claims Molly made about me, which included a claim by Molly that I tried to kill her one night.
So of course, I ended up in jail in the first time of my 43 years soon after these false allegations were made against me by Molly. The second night I was in jail, I decided to write Hayley a letter.
Now, writing Hayley fractures the restraining order falsely issued against me, since this is contacting Hayley in this manner. But since I was already in jail, I really was not concerned about breaking this abusive enforcement of psychotic laws now against me.
As I wrote her that night, I was not the fun dad I usually am with Hayley due to my state of mind. However, I never wrote anything to Hayley indicating hatred or anger towards her mother, Molly. Nor did I, in my words to Hayley, debate her mother's false accusations against me.
My undergrad is in child psychology, and I learned with my education that it is never a good idea to attack a parent in any way during a split of the parents, which is what is occuring with our family right now. So I wrote to Hayley that I will always love her mother because her mother gave Hayley to me almost 12 years ago. This is the woman who put me in jail.
I also wrote to Hayley that the destruction happening to our family right now is difficult to understand for both of us, but we should try and grasp this situation together in time. I told Hayley with my writing to her that I loved and missed her, and that I hoped she would write me back soon.
I mailed this letter to her grandparent's house. These are Molly's parents, and are very wonderful people who have been married for more than 60 years. They understand the importance of a father in a child's life.
I only mailed this letter to Hayley after trading my breakfast the next day in order to get a stamped envelope from another inmate.
Hayley wrote me back soon afterwards, and I was thrilled beyond belief. Yet her letter understandably was cautious. She shared a bit with me about school and her friends. What really got me was the end of her letter to me:
P.S. Daddy- everything is going to be OK, no matter what....
I cried when I read this from her. She understands more than I fully realize about my own frame of mind, and what is happening to our family right now. I shed tears as I recall this that she wrote. She wrecked her father, and this is not the first time.
So my next letter to Hayley was much more jovial than my initial letter to her:
Dear Hayley....Hey, guess what? We are pen pals now.....YAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!
Then I went on to tell her how cool she is. I discussed what she wanted to be for halloween. I effortlessly made her laugh what I wrote to her in this letter. The words I shared with Hayley came from my heart.
Her next letter to me was much more upbeat. She was thrilled that we were pen pals now. She expressed clearly how happy she was that she was getting mail from her daddy now. This made me comforted greatly. I was at peace with her emotional and mental state now.
The next letter composed by me to Hayley was apparently as enjoyable to her as she read this. The letter included beautiful drawings from Tommy, my cell mate in jail. This letter also included acts that Hayley and I frequently do to each other when we are together:
High five, girlfriend!
Big hug from dad!
Forehead kiss!
Hayley put the drawings by Tommy that I mailed to her on her school locker walls, she told me in her writing to me afterwards.
Tommy, my cell mate artist during that time, is a 22 year old homeless guy who was in jail for assault on another adult. He had been homeless for much of his life. And Tommy did have anger issues. It took me about 2 weeks to gain his trust. Once this happened, I discussed with Tommy more benign outlets for his anger urges, and the importance of thinking before acting. Tommy also has done illegal drugs, so we discussed the impact of such drugs on his health and behavior.
I'm in jail with Tommy due to accusations that I'm a violent person- accusations against my wife from my wife. Yet I'm doing anger management with guys like Tommy.
Irony and surrealism were banging on my cell door with this reality at the time.
My family is destroyed. My family is gone. I have to learn to live with this. Yet this dialogue with Hayley is a very positive element to what is happening to our family. I was able to achieve and create joy simply by establishing a pen pal relationship with Hayley.
It has been said that great humor has an apex of great pain. I understand this more clearly now.
As I was released from jail, I was told never to write my daughter again. This violates the restraining order, the judge told me. I'm still in shock by this order to me by the judge via my wife's free prosecutor. I create joy in the middle of great pain, and I'm told to discontinue creating such joy.
This is unacceptable, this order against me with such acts. I'm being punished for loving my daughter. I'm being punished for assuring the well being of Hayley mentally and emotionally.
These are the laws that exist in our country, and they must be discontinued.
Thank you for reading this.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Daughter
As many know, my wife of 20 years filed false claims against me of violent abuse against her one unforgetable day in August of this year.
Molly, my wife, did this in order to acquire a tactical advantage in a divorice she clearly wants that I was completely unaware of until she filed a retraining order against me that prevents me from having any contact whatsovever with my daughter as well, whose name is Hayley.
My wife told her free army of legal professionals that she suspects that child abuse was occuring by me against Hayley. This particular claim is far more absurd than the abuse claims Molly made about me, which included a claim by Molly that I tried to kill her one night.
So of course, I ended up in jail in the first time of my 43 years soon after these false allegations were made against me by Molly. The second night I was in jail, I decided to write Hayley a letter.
Now, writing Hayley fractures the restraining order falsely issued against me, since this is contacting Hayley in this manner. But since I was already in jail, I really was not concerned about breaking this abusive enforcement of psychotic laws now against me.
As I wrote her that night, I was not the fun dad I usually am with Hayley due to my state of mind. However, I never wrote anything to Hayley indicating hatred or anger towards her mother, Molly. Nor did I, in my words to Hayley, debate her mother's false accusations against me.
My undergrad is in child psychology, and I learned with my education that it is never a good idea to attack a parent in any way during a split of the parents, which is what is occuring with our family right now. So I wrote to Hayley that I will always love her mother because her mother gave Hayley to me almost 12 years ago. This is the woman who put me in jail.
I also wrote to Hayley that the destruction happening to our family right now is difficult to understand for both of us, but we should try and grasp this situation together in time. I told Hayley with my writing to her that I loved and missed her, and that I hoped she would write me back soon.
I mailed this letter to her grandparent's house. These are Molly's parents, and are very wonderful people who have been married for more than 60 years. They understand the importance of a father in a child's life.
I only mailed this letter to Hayley after trading my breakfast the next day in order to get a stamped envelope from another inmate.
Hayley wrote me back soon afterwards, and I was thrilled beyond belief. Yet her letter understandably was cautious. She shared a bit with me about school and her friends. What really got me was the end of her letter to me:
P.S. Daddy- everything is going to be OK, no matter what....
I cried when I read this from her. She understands more than I fully realize about my own frame of mind, and what is happening to our family right now. I shed tears as I recall this that she wrote. She wrecked her father, and this is not the first time.
So my next letter to Hayley was much more jovial than my initial letter to her:
Dear Hayley....Hey, guess what? We are pen pals now.....YAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!
Then I went on to tell her how cool she is. I discussed what she wanted to be for halloween. I effortlessly made her laugh what I wrote to her in this letter. The words I shared with Hayley came from my heart.
Her next letter to me was much more upbeat. She was thrilled that we were pen pals now. She expressed clearly how happy she was that she was getting mail from her daddy now. This made me comforted greatly. I was at peace with her emotional and mental state now.
The next letter composed by me to Hayley was apparently as enjoyable to her as she read this. The letter included beautiful drawings from Tommy, my cell mate in jail. This letter also included acts that Hayley and I frequently do to each other when we are together:
High five, girlfriend!
Big hug from dad!
Forehead kiss!
Hayley put the drawings by Tommy that I mailed to her on her school locker walls, she told me in her writing to me afterwards.
Tommy, my cell mate artist during that time, is a 22 year old homeless guy who was in jail for assault on another adult. He had been homeless for much of his life. And Tommy did have anger issues. It took me about 2 weeks to gain his trust. Once this happened, I discussed with Tommy more benign outlets for his anger urges, and the importance of thinking before acting. Tommy also has done illegal drugs, so we discussed the impact of such drugs on his health and behavior.
I'm in jail with Tommy due to accusations that I'm a violent person- accusations against my wife from my wife. Yet I'm doing anger management with guys like Tommy.
Irony and surrealism were banging on my cell door with this reality at the time.
My family is destroyed. My family is gone. I have to learn to live with this. Yet this dialogue with Hayley is a very positive element to what is happening to our family. I was able to achieve and create joy simply by establishing a pen pal relationship with Hayley.
It has been said that great humor has an apex of great pain. I understand this more clearly now.
As I was released from jail, I was told never to write my daughter again. This violates the restraining order, the judge told me. I'm still in shock by this order to me by the judge via my wife's free prosecutor. I create joy in the middle of great pain, and I'm told to discontinue creating such joy.
This is unacceptable, this order against me with such acts. I'm being punished for loving my daughter. I'm being punished for assuring the well being of Hayley mentally and emotionally.
These are the laws that exist in our country, and they must be discontinued.
Thank you for reading this.
Molly, my wife, did this in order to acquire a tactical advantage in a divorice she clearly wants that I was completely unaware of until she filed a retraining order against me that prevents me from having any contact whatsovever with my daughter as well, whose name is Hayley.
My wife told her free army of legal professionals that she suspects that child abuse was occuring by me against Hayley. This particular claim is far more absurd than the abuse claims Molly made about me, which included a claim by Molly that I tried to kill her one night.
So of course, I ended up in jail in the first time of my 43 years soon after these false allegations were made against me by Molly. The second night I was in jail, I decided to write Hayley a letter.
Now, writing Hayley fractures the restraining order falsely issued against me, since this is contacting Hayley in this manner. But since I was already in jail, I really was not concerned about breaking this abusive enforcement of psychotic laws now against me.
As I wrote her that night, I was not the fun dad I usually am with Hayley due to my state of mind. However, I never wrote anything to Hayley indicating hatred or anger towards her mother, Molly. Nor did I, in my words to Hayley, debate her mother's false accusations against me.
My undergrad is in child psychology, and I learned with my education that it is never a good idea to attack a parent in any way during a split of the parents, which is what is occuring with our family right now. So I wrote to Hayley that I will always love her mother because her mother gave Hayley to me almost 12 years ago. This is the woman who put me in jail.
I also wrote to Hayley that the destruction happening to our family right now is difficult to understand for both of us, but we should try and grasp this situation together in time. I told Hayley with my writing to her that I loved and missed her, and that I hoped she would write me back soon.
I mailed this letter to her grandparent's house. These are Molly's parents, and are very wonderful people who have been married for more than 60 years. They understand the importance of a father in a child's life.
I only mailed this letter to Hayley after trading my breakfast the next day in order to get a stamped envelope from another inmate.
Hayley wrote me back soon afterwards, and I was thrilled beyond belief. Yet her letter understandably was cautious. She shared a bit with me about school and her friends. What really got me was the end of her letter to me:
P.S. Daddy- everything is going to be OK, no matter what....
I cried when I read this from her. She understands more than I fully realize about my own frame of mind, and what is happening to our family right now. I shed tears as I recall this that she wrote. She wrecked her father, and this is not the first time.
So my next letter to Hayley was much more jovial than my initial letter to her:
Dear Hayley....Hey, guess what? We are pen pals now.....YAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!
Then I went on to tell her how cool she is. I discussed what she wanted to be for halloween. I effortlessly made her laugh what I wrote to her in this letter. The words I shared with Hayley came from my heart.
Her next letter to me was much more upbeat. She was thrilled that we were pen pals now. She expressed clearly how happy she was that she was getting mail from her daddy now. This made me comforted greatly. I was at peace with her emotional and mental state now.
The next letter composed by me to Hayley was apparently as enjoyable to her as she read this. The letter included beautiful drawings from Tommy, my cell mate in jail. This letter also included acts that Hayley and I frequently do to each other when we are together:
High five, girlfriend!
Big hug from dad!
Forehead kiss!
Hayley put the drawings by Tommy that I mailed to her on her school locker walls, she told me in her writing to me afterwards.
Tommy, my cell mate artist during that time, is a 22 year old homeless guy who was in jail for assault on another adult. He had been homeless for much of his life. And Tommy did have anger issues. It took me about 2 weeks to gain his trust. Once this happened, I discussed with Tommy more benign outlets for his anger urges, and the importance of thinking before acting. Tommy also has done illegal drugs, so we discussed the impact of such drugs on his health and behavior.
I'm in jail with Tommy due to accusations that I'm a violent person- accusations against my wife from my wife. Yet I'm doing anger management with guys like Tommy.
Irony and surrealism were banging on my cell door with this reality at the time.
My family is destroyed. My family is gone. I have to learn to live with this. Yet this dialogue with Hayley is a very positive element to what is happening to our family. I was able to achieve and create joy simply by establishing a pen pal relationship with Hayley.
It has been said that great humor has an apex of great pain. I understand this more clearly now.
As I was released from jail, I was told never to write my daughter again. This violates the restraining order, the judge told me. I'm still in shock by this order to me by the judge via my wife's free prosecutor. I create joy in the middle of great pain, and I'm told to discontinue creating such joy.
This is unacceptable, this order against me with such acts. I'm being punished for loving my daughter. I'm being punished for assuring the well being of Hayley mentally and emotionally.
These are the laws that exist in our country, and they must be discontinued.
Thank you for reading this.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Fight
In the past two months, I've received false accusations that began with claims of violent spousal abuse by my former wife of 20 years. As a result, I have experienced criminal arrest, incarceration, conviction, and loss of freedom. I've also discovered that the color orange of the inmate attire is definitely not a good color for me.
I've been denied access to my 11 year old daughter entirely. The pain of this particular injury is indescribable.
I was rapidly removed from my own home. So I'm now homeless, unemployed, and am now living out of my one remaining asset out of what was thousands of dollars of assets. This would be my 500 dollar car. Fortunately, I learned some tips from those I met in jail who are homeless themselves. There are many of them.
My primary concern since this has occured with me is the safety and well-being of my daughter. In fact, men typically do not leave an abusive relationship themselves because they often fear for their child's safety- along with potentially losing their relationship with their children.
Gender biased stereotypes have ultimately placed me at the mercy of those in this pathetic family law system we have in this country who absolutely know nothing about me. They do not care to know me.
The following was retrieved from www.mediaradar.org, '50 Domestic Violence Myths':
Women are just as likely as men to engage in partner aggression, according to hundreds of studies. Partner violence, if it happens, is often mutual. Self defense accounts for only fifteen percent or so of partner aggression.
Less than five percent of domestic violence incidents involve couples in an intact marital relationship, such as mine was. Studies show marriage is clearly the safest partner relationship. In fact, most cases of family conflict do not involve physical violence at all. Mine never did.
I have a restraining order against me now. Over 2/3 of restraining orders issued are determined to be either unnecessary or false. Also, these orders do not prevent future violence from occuring. In fact, restraining orders may encourage violence. Also, if I attempt to reconcile any conflict with my former spouse, I will get arrested. If I send my daughter a birthday card, I will be in jail. I've not spoken with or seen my wife or daughter in over two months now. Yet I've been arrested often during this time.
There is overt gender bias in the family law system that exists today. For example, if a man kills his wife, he will get about 20 years in prison, as he should. However, if a woman kills her husband, she will get about 5 years in prison. The etiology for this gap reflects the gender bias that exists. Also, in divorice court, women are granted sole custody of their children about 65 percent higher rate than men. There is in fact a frightening fatherhood crisis in our country in particular. All modesty aside, as a dad, I completely rock out loud.
I'm a victim of domestic abuse myself. I suffered over a decade of brutal physical and emotional child abuse that you likely do not want to know the details behind this fact. However, the propaganda fed to our society by certain womens and victim advocacy groups must be stopped, and clarified by the facts.
Meanwhile, I suggest that others stay out of this system. Resolve your disputes through negotiation. Do not be compelled to share your dirty laundry with these anti-family law enforcers. Do not be forced to fight for your rights in such an unfortunate situation as mine in a courtroom. By that time, it is too late.
I'm presently losing this battle, but I continue to stand up after I've been slammed to the ground several times already. I'll stand up again.
Such family court and legal intervention is often used by others as a weapon or tactic that is freely available for them to utilize, and such people are likely mentally flawed, if not entirely absent of a soul.
I'm not angry or hateful about what is happening to me- this surreal nightmare that has manifested into a bizarre reality. I will not lower myself to be this way ever. And I will also never live in fear as a result of what is happening to me. If I do become fearful, I will lose this fight completely. And this is a fight I cannot lose. I love my daughter way too much.
So I likely will be in jail again. This is just a fact about my life now. That's OK, though. Because some battles need to be fought, and the results can lead to suffering.
So I fight.
I've been denied access to my 11 year old daughter entirely. The pain of this particular injury is indescribable.
I was rapidly removed from my own home. So I'm now homeless, unemployed, and am now living out of my one remaining asset out of what was thousands of dollars of assets. This would be my 500 dollar car. Fortunately, I learned some tips from those I met in jail who are homeless themselves. There are many of them.
My primary concern since this has occured with me is the safety and well-being of my daughter. In fact, men typically do not leave an abusive relationship themselves because they often fear for their child's safety- along with potentially losing their relationship with their children.
Gender biased stereotypes have ultimately placed me at the mercy of those in this pathetic family law system we have in this country who absolutely know nothing about me. They do not care to know me.
The following was retrieved from www.mediaradar.org, '50 Domestic Violence Myths':
Women are just as likely as men to engage in partner aggression, according to hundreds of studies. Partner violence, if it happens, is often mutual. Self defense accounts for only fifteen percent or so of partner aggression.
Less than five percent of domestic violence incidents involve couples in an intact marital relationship, such as mine was. Studies show marriage is clearly the safest partner relationship. In fact, most cases of family conflict do not involve physical violence at all. Mine never did.
I have a restraining order against me now. Over 2/3 of restraining orders issued are determined to be either unnecessary or false. Also, these orders do not prevent future violence from occuring. In fact, restraining orders may encourage violence. Also, if I attempt to reconcile any conflict with my former spouse, I will get arrested. If I send my daughter a birthday card, I will be in jail. I've not spoken with or seen my wife or daughter in over two months now. Yet I've been arrested often during this time.
There is overt gender bias in the family law system that exists today. For example, if a man kills his wife, he will get about 20 years in prison, as he should. However, if a woman kills her husband, she will get about 5 years in prison. The etiology for this gap reflects the gender bias that exists. Also, in divorice court, women are granted sole custody of their children about 65 percent higher rate than men. There is in fact a frightening fatherhood crisis in our country in particular. All modesty aside, as a dad, I completely rock out loud.
I'm a victim of domestic abuse myself. I suffered over a decade of brutal physical and emotional child abuse that you likely do not want to know the details behind this fact. However, the propaganda fed to our society by certain womens and victim advocacy groups must be stopped, and clarified by the facts.
Meanwhile, I suggest that others stay out of this system. Resolve your disputes through negotiation. Do not be compelled to share your dirty laundry with these anti-family law enforcers. Do not be forced to fight for your rights in such an unfortunate situation as mine in a courtroom. By that time, it is too late.
I'm presently losing this battle, but I continue to stand up after I've been slammed to the ground several times already. I'll stand up again.
Such family court and legal intervention is often used by others as a weapon or tactic that is freely available for them to utilize, and such people are likely mentally flawed, if not entirely absent of a soul.
I'm not angry or hateful about what is happening to me- this surreal nightmare that has manifested into a bizarre reality. I will not lower myself to be this way ever. And I will also never live in fear as a result of what is happening to me. If I do become fearful, I will lose this fight completely. And this is a fight I cannot lose. I love my daughter way too much.
So I likely will be in jail again. This is just a fact about my life now. That's OK, though. Because some battles need to be fought, and the results can lead to suffering.
So I fight.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Hell
The following was composed by me at 3 a.m. this morning at a flea market where I await to be a vendor. Why? Because less than three weeks ago, my wife of 20 years, who I have known for 30 years, filed a restraining order against me for absolutely nothing. She claimed abuse and violence from me against her. I never have caused, or threatened, abuse or violence against my wife. I'm selling what few possessions I have in order to eat. I am unemployed, and sleeping in my car now:
I kid you not. The order is possible due to the Violence Against Women Act Of 1994. Clinton was looking for votes to get re-elected, so he got them from radical feminists who have the atonomy to punish those as myself based on the weakest evidence there is, which is hearsay. A woman can simply walk in to a law enforcement institution, and say that she is scared of her spouse, and he will get, and they will encourage, a restraining order.
Shock and devastation are very weak words to decribe fully how I feel presently. This nightmare continues- this surreal abyss.
The day after my wife prevented me from entering my home, or seeing my daughter with this restraining order, my wife vacated my home with most of its contents and moved in with her lesbian drug addict lover. Another unknown.
We have an 11 year old daughter I greatly love. I now cry nightly, and cry with great strength, due to what has been inflicted upon me with deliberate intent by one who is most intimate with me. I thought. I cry due to my longing and concern for my daughter.
Due to my state of mind at the time, I violated repeatedly the restraining order I was given that I did not, and do not, acknowledge, within days. I did this by attempting to email my wife, as well as care for my vacant home due to my restriction from both due to this absurd Act.
As a result, I was arrested, and put in the worst county jail in their psych unit. I had never been to jail or arrested in the past, so the feel of cold metal against my wrists and ankles, along with colder metal bars in front of me instead of most welcome sunshine, was most unpleasant. This lasted for an entire week.
Passion and salesmanship, along with tactical planning, reduced my sentence to a week from 60 days. A reminder- I committed no crime.
I considered writing this note soon after this awful life stressor, but considered myself days afterwards void of objectivity to annotate aseptically until this time.
Here is what one should consider when a psychopath atrophies you in such a way:
Finances-
Likely, you and your spouse are in a lot of financial debt if you get issued a restraining order. Your spouse gets a cheap divorice through the Violence Against Women Act, and the spouse assures custody of any children- along with other tactical advantages regarding the divorice your spouse likely will file against you.
Guess what? Likely, you will get issued a restraining order for weeks initially, that will manifest into an entire year due to this Act from hell. So likely, you become exonerated from any financial debt concerns in large part because you cannot respond to those you owe. No one relevant to this can contact you due to the order.
The ones you owe likely do not know how to reach you after you receive a restraining order. Those you owe should not contact you at work. You may be financially relieved due to this restraining order against you. Likely, your spouse will file for bankruptcy for joint debt, and that is that.
Custody-
Im a terrific father with great joy to my daughter as I managed a very unstable and substandard mother of this fantastic girl. Due to my gender, there is not a chance in hell I'll get custody of my daughter after a divorice. So here is what you may want to consider doing: Likely, your spouse that implemented this cruelty upon you is plain evil. This spouse likely has evil friends of their gender.
Cautiously, know where these evil friends of your spouse live. Likely, some of these friends use illegal drugs, or are abusers themselves. Find out when your spouse brings your child at the location of such friends for various reasons.
At that time, call the police, and make a report. You will not commit perjury by doing this. Say you hear screams from the friend's house- or smell something metallic, or smell pot. Anything like this. Be creative. Be intelligent.
Choose the friends of your spouse wisely. If you are lucky, cops arrive at the friend's house and busts the friend for such crimes mentioned earlier. Since your offspring are at this house during the bust, they are put in state custody. And guess what? The Division Of Family Services contacts you to retrive your offspring, my friend. They will reach you, most likely. This game plan is a stretch, but worth considering.
I'm not a vindictive person. I care about the utopic well-being of my daughter. As such, I'm tactically planning though my tremendous pain presently. This is why I share this with you.
Thank you.
I kid you not. The order is possible due to the Violence Against Women Act Of 1994. Clinton was looking for votes to get re-elected, so he got them from radical feminists who have the atonomy to punish those as myself based on the weakest evidence there is, which is hearsay. A woman can simply walk in to a law enforcement institution, and say that she is scared of her spouse, and he will get, and they will encourage, a restraining order.
Shock and devastation are very weak words to decribe fully how I feel presently. This nightmare continues- this surreal abyss.
The day after my wife prevented me from entering my home, or seeing my daughter with this restraining order, my wife vacated my home with most of its contents and moved in with her lesbian drug addict lover. Another unknown.
We have an 11 year old daughter I greatly love. I now cry nightly, and cry with great strength, due to what has been inflicted upon me with deliberate intent by one who is most intimate with me. I thought. I cry due to my longing and concern for my daughter.
Due to my state of mind at the time, I violated repeatedly the restraining order I was given that I did not, and do not, acknowledge, within days. I did this by attempting to email my wife, as well as care for my vacant home due to my restriction from both due to this absurd Act.
As a result, I was arrested, and put in the worst county jail in their psych unit. I had never been to jail or arrested in the past, so the feel of cold metal against my wrists and ankles, along with colder metal bars in front of me instead of most welcome sunshine, was most unpleasant. This lasted for an entire week.
Passion and salesmanship, along with tactical planning, reduced my sentence to a week from 60 days. A reminder- I committed no crime.
I considered writing this note soon after this awful life stressor, but considered myself days afterwards void of objectivity to annotate aseptically until this time.
Here is what one should consider when a psychopath atrophies you in such a way:
Finances-
Likely, you and your spouse are in a lot of financial debt if you get issued a restraining order. Your spouse gets a cheap divorice through the Violence Against Women Act, and the spouse assures custody of any children- along with other tactical advantages regarding the divorice your spouse likely will file against you.
Guess what? Likely, you will get issued a restraining order for weeks initially, that will manifest into an entire year due to this Act from hell. So likely, you become exonerated from any financial debt concerns in large part because you cannot respond to those you owe. No one relevant to this can contact you due to the order.
The ones you owe likely do not know how to reach you after you receive a restraining order. Those you owe should not contact you at work. You may be financially relieved due to this restraining order against you. Likely, your spouse will file for bankruptcy for joint debt, and that is that.
Custody-
Im a terrific father with great joy to my daughter as I managed a very unstable and substandard mother of this fantastic girl. Due to my gender, there is not a chance in hell I'll get custody of my daughter after a divorice. So here is what you may want to consider doing: Likely, your spouse that implemented this cruelty upon you is plain evil. This spouse likely has evil friends of their gender.
Cautiously, know where these evil friends of your spouse live. Likely, some of these friends use illegal drugs, or are abusers themselves. Find out when your spouse brings your child at the location of such friends for various reasons.
At that time, call the police, and make a report. You will not commit perjury by doing this. Say you hear screams from the friend's house- or smell something metallic, or smell pot. Anything like this. Be creative. Be intelligent.
Choose the friends of your spouse wisely. If you are lucky, cops arrive at the friend's house and busts the friend for such crimes mentioned earlier. Since your offspring are at this house during the bust, they are put in state custody. And guess what? The Division Of Family Services contacts you to retrive your offspring, my friend. They will reach you, most likely. This game plan is a stretch, but worth considering.
I'm not a vindictive person. I care about the utopic well-being of my daughter. As such, I'm tactically planning though my tremendous pain presently. This is why I share this with you.
Thank you.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Medicalization
The Corporate Funded Birth Of Disease Through Unease
Attempts to convince normally healthy people that they are in fact sick and there for require pharmacological intervention can significantly inflate the market specific to the disease state whose boundaries diagnostically are now artificially expanded through disease mongering.
The financial cost to both the individual and the community due to disease mongering is rather high. Deliberate separation from the pharmaceutical industry- as well as a tactical plan for thorough critical analysis- are necessary to combat disease mongering.
Furthermore, educating patients who in fact may not be patients by empowering them to make correct decisions regarding their health are of importance as well.
Disease mongering is medicalization, which is the deliberate marketing plan of turning what are normal and common lifespan events that are far from chronic into fictional medical conditions.
Through propaganda, disease mongering creates the perception among others that occurrences that are within normal limits are in fact concerning symptoms. This leads others to believe that risks are potentially disease states.
This propaganda done by the pharmaceutical industry is performed through public awareness campaigns ad nauseum in mass media with the intent to strongly persuade others to seek and acquire new marketed treatments by this industry.
In addition, the creation of support groups for these disease states that are not are provided by the pharmaceutical industry that are in reality front groups for members of this industry.
Clinical data shared with the public is often fabricated, embellished, or misrepresented. The frequent claim that a drug provides relative risk reduction greatly of a disease state believed to exist is a manipulation by the drug company. Absolute risk reduction, however, is the true representation of the efficacy of a drug.
For example, if drug A states that it provides a 50 percent relative risk reduction in the progression of alopecia often sounds impressive to many. In reality, this may and often means that out of, say, 100 people, two had progressive alopecia. Yet with drug A, only 1 out of 100 had alopecia.
When the ladder, absolute risk reduction, is presented, it gives the impression that drug A really is not that efficacious after all.
The copious amounts of advertising by the pharmaceutical industry is done so with the intent to create fear, anxiety, or sadness upon the viewer about their lack of ideal health that deceptively is far from the truth.
As a society in the U.S., we are falsely led to believe that youth and efficacy as an individual should be acquired at any cost. Any fallacy perceived by one that prevents the acquisition of youth and efficacy ultimately leads many others to eliminate such fallacies.
Examples of diseases simply created by drug companies include erectile dysfunction, which is a symptom often of a truly existing disease, social phobia, which is simply introversion- a normal personality component of humans, as well as male pattern baldness, which occurs naturally in about half of men due to genetic predisposition.
The danger and consequences of disease mongering include the waste of often precious medical resources, as well as the possibly of causing iatrogenic harm to one seeking restoration of their health.
And the pharmaceutical industry has allies with their business plans of disease mongering. These include again front groups, hired journalists, public relations companies hired by drug companies, as well as doctor groups.
All utilize mass media to facilitate their objective. Disease Mongering is more frequent presently due to lifestyle drugs- drugs that do not delay the progression of authentic disease, or treat these diseases, but rather comfort a consumer rather than a patient.
Lawmakers in the United States are aware of disease mongering. However through over saturated lobbying by those in the pharmaceutical industry, such government officials have chosen not to intervene to prevent this potentially dangerous marketing tactic.
This is concerning, considering that presently the restructuring of the health care system in the United States is in its first phase. Disease mongering is not contributing, but in fact is corrupting this restructuring,
Dan Abshear
Attempts to convince normally healthy people that they are in fact sick and there for require pharmacological intervention can significantly inflate the market specific to the disease state whose boundaries diagnostically are now artificially expanded through disease mongering.
The financial cost to both the individual and the community due to disease mongering is rather high. Deliberate separation from the pharmaceutical industry- as well as a tactical plan for thorough critical analysis- are necessary to combat disease mongering.
Furthermore, educating patients who in fact may not be patients by empowering them to make correct decisions regarding their health are of importance as well.
Disease mongering is medicalization, which is the deliberate marketing plan of turning what are normal and common lifespan events that are far from chronic into fictional medical conditions.
Through propaganda, disease mongering creates the perception among others that occurrences that are within normal limits are in fact concerning symptoms. This leads others to believe that risks are potentially disease states.
This propaganda done by the pharmaceutical industry is performed through public awareness campaigns ad nauseum in mass media with the intent to strongly persuade others to seek and acquire new marketed treatments by this industry.
In addition, the creation of support groups for these disease states that are not are provided by the pharmaceutical industry that are in reality front groups for members of this industry.
Clinical data shared with the public is often fabricated, embellished, or misrepresented. The frequent claim that a drug provides relative risk reduction greatly of a disease state believed to exist is a manipulation by the drug company. Absolute risk reduction, however, is the true representation of the efficacy of a drug.
For example, if drug A states that it provides a 50 percent relative risk reduction in the progression of alopecia often sounds impressive to many. In reality, this may and often means that out of, say, 100 people, two had progressive alopecia. Yet with drug A, only 1 out of 100 had alopecia.
When the ladder, absolute risk reduction, is presented, it gives the impression that drug A really is not that efficacious after all.
The copious amounts of advertising by the pharmaceutical industry is done so with the intent to create fear, anxiety, or sadness upon the viewer about their lack of ideal health that deceptively is far from the truth.
As a society in the U.S., we are falsely led to believe that youth and efficacy as an individual should be acquired at any cost. Any fallacy perceived by one that prevents the acquisition of youth and efficacy ultimately leads many others to eliminate such fallacies.
Examples of diseases simply created by drug companies include erectile dysfunction, which is a symptom often of a truly existing disease, social phobia, which is simply introversion- a normal personality component of humans, as well as male pattern baldness, which occurs naturally in about half of men due to genetic predisposition.
The danger and consequences of disease mongering include the waste of often precious medical resources, as well as the possibly of causing iatrogenic harm to one seeking restoration of their health.
And the pharmaceutical industry has allies with their business plans of disease mongering. These include again front groups, hired journalists, public relations companies hired by drug companies, as well as doctor groups.
All utilize mass media to facilitate their objective. Disease Mongering is more frequent presently due to lifestyle drugs- drugs that do not delay the progression of authentic disease, or treat these diseases, but rather comfort a consumer rather than a patient.
Lawmakers in the United States are aware of disease mongering. However through over saturated lobbying by those in the pharmaceutical industry, such government officials have chosen not to intervene to prevent this potentially dangerous marketing tactic.
This is concerning, considering that presently the restructuring of the health care system in the United States is in its first phase. Disease mongering is not contributing, but in fact is corrupting this restructuring,
Dan Abshear
Saturday, July 25, 2009
TeenScreen
A ridiculous mental health initiative was unveiled by President Bush in July 2004, after being established in 2002. The plan promises to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions- according to a March 2004 progress report entitled, ‘New Freedom Commission on Mental health’, Executive Order 13263.. It is a federal action agenda that is being initiated.
Bush established the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in April 2002 to conduct a comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system, so he told the public. This includes over 50 million children targeted for mental health screening in over 100,000 schools in the United States.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA), who has an overt affinity for pharmaceutical industry funds, supports this Commission. In fact, the Bush administration was very appreciative of the efforts of the APA to suppress mass media coverage of facts and stories raised by others exposing plans to screen others for mental illness.
The 15 person commission issued its recommendations in July 2003. Included in this commission is the aggressive mental health screening of children performed by TeenScreen, which is in partnership with the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI).
TeenScreen is unnecessary, because there is already an existing structure for screening and labeling children as part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and they fortunately do not do such a cruel procedure. Furthermore, due to rapid developmental changes with children, it is very difficult to accurately diagnose these children. It’s easy for others to drug them with toxic synthetic small molecules, however.
TeenScreen clearly is simply a government sponsored market expander for those in the pharmaceutical industry who market psychotropic drugs. SSRIs, a frequently prescribed class of medications, generates close to 200 million prescriptions in the United States that approaches a cost of 20 billion dollars a year. Funding from pharmaceutical companies to have others do such pathetic abuse is overt and obvious (http://www.signsofsuicide.org/funding.htm).
On TeenScreen’s own website, it states that it believes any funding from pharmaceutical companies could create the appearance of a possible inducement to recommend treatment, yet TeenScreen does not prohibit funds from drug companies.
Medicaid is the largest payer of mental health services- with 1 out of every 5 dollars spent by Medicaid goes to psychotropic drugs. Nearly 3 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time without merit or efficacy provided by these drugs, overall. The cost is on average over 100 dollars a month for each child for these drugs.
Mental health screening programs have never been proven to prevent suicide, the apex of TeenScreen, according to the organization. The Commission chose to have TeenScreen assess children at public schools because these school districts get more money for every student that is labeled mentally ill or disabled.
The US Preventative Special Task Force, sponsored by the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, stated in 2004 that there is no evidence that mental health screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality. Presently, this task force now supports TeenScreen. Why they do now is unknown. Perhaps job security for those involved with these organizations.
Those who lead TeenScreen contradict themselves. Leslie McGuire, TeenScreen’s director, and formerly a leader at NAMI, stated that TeenScreen was not affiliated with or funded by drug companies. She also stated that TeenScreen does not involve treatment and does not recommend or endorse any particular kind of treatment for the youth who are identified by them as at risk by their screenings.
Her Co-Director, Llaurie Flinn, however, stated that treatment is the long term goal for TeenScreen.
Some insist on the truth, and others avoid the truth.
After getting passive consent without acknowledgement often from the parents of the children TeenScreen desires to screen, TeenScreen asks a series of questions to children that they believe will indicate mental disorders- with the focus being those children who are potentially suicidal- as they completely disregarding the fact that a score on a rating scale alone is not sufficient to diagnose such mental illnesses as depression.
The number of positive responses from the questions answered by the children will determine by TeenScreen if mental illness exists. However, a score is positive if a child refuses to answer any of the questions given to them by TeenScreen. The positive indications are catalysts for referrals of children for treatment. Yet TeenScreen does not disclose where these children are sent for treatment to anyone.
These questions are not given to the parents of the child screened. This violates the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment. However, the questions can be obtained on websites such as: www.teenscreentruths.com.
The passive consent deception is that they ask the parents on a form to return the form to the school only if they do not want their child to participate in the screening. Also, the consent form does not state that there is no scientific proof to back up the screening, yet will be used to label the child mentally ill.
Also, initially, TeenScreen stated that if their mental health screening program is approved by the Board of Education as part of the educational program, parental consent is not necessary. The Board of Education corrected TeenScreen soon afterwards. Deliberate intent to bypass federal laws illustrates their determination to satisfy their sponsors, it seems.
Nor does the consent form describe the treatment possible with psychotropic drugs, and the dangers of these drugs. And, if the parent refuses the recommended course of treatment by TeenScreen, a referral to the local child welfare agency might be made, which could result in their child being taken away from home and forcibly drugged.
This scares me.
Equally deceptive is the fact that TeenScreen advises local schools on how to circumvent federal law. The Protection of Pupil Rights Act (PPRA) protects the rights of parents by making instructional materials available for their inspection if the materials are to be used in connection with a survey, analysis, or evaluation in which their child is participating.
It also requires written parental consent before minors are required to take part in such a survey, analysis, or evaluation. Furthermore, public school districts, I understand, receive additional state funding as their students are diagnosed with disorders that do not exist. So everyone wins except the children they are destroying.
The focus on those who are suicidal is a bit ridiculous, since suicide rates in this age group have fallen greatly for the past several years now. And if that is the goal of TeenScreen, their methodology is incomplete:
Do they ask if the student has been, or is, irritable and apathetic? No.
Do they ask if the student has or is not sleeping well? No.
Do they ask if the student has frequent stomachaches? No.
Do they ask if the student has given away any of their possessions? No.
Do they ask if the student has access to a firearm? No.
Do they ask if, when a student states they have thought of suicide, if such a student has a plan? No.
Do they ask if a child has any sexual frustration? No
Do they ask if the child’s parents are together or unemployed? No
Do they ask how long a child has been depressed if they say that they are? No. (Major Depression lasts for at least two weeks straight.)
Does teenscreen try with great effort to diagnose those they screen regardless of the inaccuracy of such a diagnosis- it certainly seems so.
Wow- what experts they have at TeenScreen……..
TeenScreen tacitly considers the pharmaceutical industry their sponsor, as indicated by the amount of money this industry gives NAMI, which is about 3 million dollars a year. Eli Lilly is the top briber of NAMI, as they are the top drug company with the most prescribed psychotropic drugs, unfortunately.
Front groups, they are, that wear the masks of advocacy groups. Over half of the revenue of such groups comes from the pharmaceutical industry. TeenScreen is no different.
Ironically and sadly, lawsuits have been filed against TeenScreen for misdiagnosing children who have been prescribed psychotropic drugs, and have committed suicide likely as a result of the drugs prescribed to them. Sad that such children are put on these toxic medications.
TeenScreen links students with those who can pharmacologically treat them for unlikely mental disorders- to further grow the number of kids already on psychotropic drugs- which exceeds 10 million children. If students are assessed by the TeenScreen staff, and are found to require additional services, are connected with a case manager to arrange for appropriate intervention.
Really?
Intervention, when discussing the practice of medicine, is generally a derogatory term used by critics of a medical model in which patients are viewed as passive recipients receiving external treatments provided by the physician that have the effect of prolonging life. Enough said.
TeenScreen has and does bribe students to take the questions they provide that are clinically worthless with such things as movie passes, gift certificates, and so forth. TeenScreen also instructs schools on how to circumvent the PPRA for students, or the Hatch Amendment. There are other legal liabilities that may be created in school districts that implement the TeenScreen program.
It was sold to others that TeenScreen primarily was preventing the incidences of suicide, and this is baseless and without merit. First of all, the rare teen suicides have been declining over the years. Some children likely are void of a concept of suicide.
The screening is a 10 minute computer test with 14 questions that was developed in the psychiatric department of Columbia University. This is hardly enough information from a child to determine their mental status.
And TeenScreen is the perfect example of a flawed mental health screening organization. They ask about thoughts of suicide in their questions of students, but do not ask if the student has a plan for suicide. Nor do they ask if a student has a family history of suicide.
Also not asked by this inadequate screening group is whether the student has physical illness that is out of control, a risk factor for suicide. This is why TeenScreen is one of the most insidious government endorsed dragnets is a mental screening tool with an 84% false-positive rate--TeenScreen. Hard to imagine that a screening tool whose predictive accuracy is only 16%
And not asked by this apathetic screening group is if the student has any family and community support for their issues. Of the symptoms the student acknowledges experiencing while answering the questions of TeenScreen, not asked is the duration of these symptoms. The questions teenscreen does ask of these victims, however, are rather leading and manipulative.
Again, it is quite obvious that TeenScreen is nothing more than a front group for their big pharma sponsors who market psychotropic drugs, as teenscreen wears the mask of a support group for the youth. The activities of TeenScreen not only potentially damage children, but also invade their privacy quite obviously, and it is allowed too often, with frightening autonomy.
The staff of TeenScreen, as well as the employees of public schools, are in fact practicing medicine without a license, and are committing slander and libel by stating that a student has a mental problem in writing, or to anyone else. Deliberate ignorance with reckless disregard for the well being of innocent children. What wonderful people at TeenScreen.
So far, and now likely to increase with the addition of primary care doctor offices as targets for locations that TeenScreen now is seeking to question children, there are greater than 500 TeenScreen sites in most states in the U.S. This decision by TeenScreen to screen kids at these doctor offices will assure quicker prescriptions unneeded for the kids, likely. It’s a business plan alteration for TeenScreen.
TeenScreen’s quick start guides for their primary care focus include tips for interpreting the screening questionnaire results, tips on making a referral for patients identified as being at possible risk, as well as tips for coding and reimbursement.
If referred to a psychiatrist by a primary care doctor, there is a 90 percent chance that this doctor will prescribe a psychotropic drug for them that they likely do not need. If nothing else, TeenScreen may eventually increase teen suicides once many of the misidentified mentally flawed students are prescribed psychotropic drugs.
There are few if any benefits associated with TeenScreen, except increased profits for pharmaceutical companies, yet their objectives are potentially and progressively damaging to children.
There are concerns about the potentially for unnecessarily causing neurological damage to these students prescribed psychotropic drugs, as well as increased substance abuse and drug dependence.
By the pharmaceutical industry using these front organizations, they compromise scientific integrity under the color of authority. TeenScreen will increase drug use rather than prevent mental illness and the utilization of alternative treatment modalities.
TeenScreen is said to have a certified mental health professional as part of their screenings. I’m not sure what this person does for them, though.
According to Wikipedia:
The Certified Mental Health Professional (CMHP) certification is designed to measure an individual’s competency in performing the following job tasks. The job tasks are not presented in any particular order of importance.
1. Maintain confidentiality of records relating to clients’ treatment.
2. Encourage clients to express their feelings, discuss what is happening in their lives, and help them to develop insight into themselves and their relationships.
3. Guide clients in the development of skills and strategies for dealing with their problems.
4. Prepare and maintain all required treatment records and reports.
5. Counsel clients and patients, individually and in group sessions, to assist in overcoming dependencies, adjusting to life, and making changes.
6. Collect information about clients through interviews, observations, and tests.
7. Act as the client’s advocate in order to coordinate required services or to resolve emergency problems in crisis situations.
8. Develop and implement treatment plans based on clinical experience and knowledge.
9. Collaborate with other staff members to perform clinical assessments and develop treatment plans.
10. Evaluate client’s physical or mental condition based on review of client information.
The certified mental health professionals of TeenScreen only do a small fraction of their tasks- all that is necessary to get drugs for the students, ultimately.
As stated earlier, TeenScreen partners with the mental health front group, NAMI. TeenScreen is led by a former head of NAMI- the front group that is a whore for those psychotropic companies in the pharmaceutical industry. And TeenScreen shares the same unethical behavior as their sponsors, and other similar front groups, it appears quite clear.
For example NAMI, did not disclose that Eli Lilly’s marketing manager, Gerald Radke, ran its entire operation at one time. Radke, starting in 1999, worked for NAMI as a Lilly-paid management consultant.
Then, Radke left Eli Lilly and served as NAMI’s paid interim executive director until 2001. After NAMI, he ran the Pennsylvania Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, and now serves the Pennsylvania Health Department. Lilly, on average, pays NAMI about a million dollars a year, and these executive loans are mutually beneficial for both.
NAMI receives more than half its budget from some pharmaceutical companies. NAMI came under scrutiny by U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley in April of 2009. Senator Grassley's investigation of NAMI confirmed that a majority of their funding was coming from the pharmaceutical companies. They are a front group, and not a national mental health advocacy group as perceived to be.
To further prosper on this government initiative involving 25 federal agencies, TeenScreen got assigned the Hilton of required Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), which is the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP), a similar program Bush started as Governor of Texas, as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."
How TeenScreen can state that they have no interference with treatment options of those determined by them to be in need of psychotropic drugs, and then require TMAP only, is a bit of a contradiction.
TMAP was ultimately developed by the pharmaceutical industry- particularly those companies that market psychotropic drugs, in 1997. This theory that the primary purpose of the commission was to recommend implementation of TMAP based algorithms on a nationwide basis for profit.
TMAP, which requires the use of newer, more expensive drug, has itself has been the subject of controversy in Texas, Pennsylvania and other states where efforts have been made to implement its use.
Developed when Bush was governor of Texas, TMAP began as an alliance of individuals from the University of Texas, the pharmaceutical industry, and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas.
Through the guise of TMAP, the drug industry has methodically influenced the decision making of elected and appointed public officials to gain access to citizens in various mental health settings. The project was funded by a Robert Wood Johnson grant and by several drug companies.
Lilly's Zyprexa is one of the atypical antipsychotic drugs recommended as a first line drug in the Texas scheme. About 70 percent of Zyprexa sales are paid for by government health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.
All together Lilly reportedly contributed $103,000 to support TMAP. Heather Lusk, an Eli Lilly representative, said contributions to TMAP were "educational" grants made by a company grants office.
Roughly 25 percent of those screened by TeenScreen have been placed on psychotropic drugs as of today. If referred to a psychiatrist, over 90 percent of these children will be prescribed at least one psychotropic drug. Psychiatrists, of all physician specialties, are paid the most by the pharmaceutical industry.
What is being done about this very concerning and authoritarian program that is damaging children?
Presently there is a bill to prohibit the use of federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening programs, H.R. 2387, The Parental Consent Act. Such screenings violate the right of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children. Also, not consenting as parents with the recommendations of mental health screeners should not be a catalyst for a charge of child abuse or education neglect.
Ron Paul spoke before the House of Representatives in 2004 to introduce the Let Parents Raise Their Kids Act, which forbids federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental health screening f students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children, as it should be.
And there is The Parental Consent Act of 2005, or HR 181, which assures the right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.
There is also the Child Medication Safety Act of 2007 to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance in order to attend school, and for other purposes.
Yet there is already an Act in place that is has the ability to form this screening function based on the Individuals with Disabilities (IDEA) act, and not TeenScreen. Of course, the pharmaceutical companies would not profit if this were to occur.
Yet the best action can and should be done by others. By parents. By many parents who should know about this program.
If one desires to contact TeenScreen:
Leslie McGuire, M.S.W.
Director
Columbia University TeenScreen Program
1775 Broadway, Suite 610 or715
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (866) 833-6727
Fax: (212) 265-4454
E-mail: teenscreen@childpsych.columbia.edu
www.teenscreen.org
Dan Abshear
Bush established the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in April 2002 to conduct a comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system, so he told the public. This includes over 50 million children targeted for mental health screening in over 100,000 schools in the United States.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA), who has an overt affinity for pharmaceutical industry funds, supports this Commission. In fact, the Bush administration was very appreciative of the efforts of the APA to suppress mass media coverage of facts and stories raised by others exposing plans to screen others for mental illness.
The 15 person commission issued its recommendations in July 2003. Included in this commission is the aggressive mental health screening of children performed by TeenScreen, which is in partnership with the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI).
TeenScreen is unnecessary, because there is already an existing structure for screening and labeling children as part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and they fortunately do not do such a cruel procedure. Furthermore, due to rapid developmental changes with children, it is very difficult to accurately diagnose these children. It’s easy for others to drug them with toxic synthetic small molecules, however.
TeenScreen clearly is simply a government sponsored market expander for those in the pharmaceutical industry who market psychotropic drugs. SSRIs, a frequently prescribed class of medications, generates close to 200 million prescriptions in the United States that approaches a cost of 20 billion dollars a year. Funding from pharmaceutical companies to have others do such pathetic abuse is overt and obvious (http://www.signsofsuicide.org/funding.htm).
On TeenScreen’s own website, it states that it believes any funding from pharmaceutical companies could create the appearance of a possible inducement to recommend treatment, yet TeenScreen does not prohibit funds from drug companies.
Medicaid is the largest payer of mental health services- with 1 out of every 5 dollars spent by Medicaid goes to psychotropic drugs. Nearly 3 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time without merit or efficacy provided by these drugs, overall. The cost is on average over 100 dollars a month for each child for these drugs.
Mental health screening programs have never been proven to prevent suicide, the apex of TeenScreen, according to the organization. The Commission chose to have TeenScreen assess children at public schools because these school districts get more money for every student that is labeled mentally ill or disabled.
The US Preventative Special Task Force, sponsored by the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, stated in 2004 that there is no evidence that mental health screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality. Presently, this task force now supports TeenScreen. Why they do now is unknown. Perhaps job security for those involved with these organizations.
Those who lead TeenScreen contradict themselves. Leslie McGuire, TeenScreen’s director, and formerly a leader at NAMI, stated that TeenScreen was not affiliated with or funded by drug companies. She also stated that TeenScreen does not involve treatment and does not recommend or endorse any particular kind of treatment for the youth who are identified by them as at risk by their screenings.
Her Co-Director, Llaurie Flinn, however, stated that treatment is the long term goal for TeenScreen.
Some insist on the truth, and others avoid the truth.
After getting passive consent without acknowledgement often from the parents of the children TeenScreen desires to screen, TeenScreen asks a series of questions to children that they believe will indicate mental disorders- with the focus being those children who are potentially suicidal- as they completely disregarding the fact that a score on a rating scale alone is not sufficient to diagnose such mental illnesses as depression.
The number of positive responses from the questions answered by the children will determine by TeenScreen if mental illness exists. However, a score is positive if a child refuses to answer any of the questions given to them by TeenScreen. The positive indications are catalysts for referrals of children for treatment. Yet TeenScreen does not disclose where these children are sent for treatment to anyone.
These questions are not given to the parents of the child screened. This violates the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment. However, the questions can be obtained on websites such as: www.teenscreentruths.com.
The passive consent deception is that they ask the parents on a form to return the form to the school only if they do not want their child to participate in the screening. Also, the consent form does not state that there is no scientific proof to back up the screening, yet will be used to label the child mentally ill.
Also, initially, TeenScreen stated that if their mental health screening program is approved by the Board of Education as part of the educational program, parental consent is not necessary. The Board of Education corrected TeenScreen soon afterwards. Deliberate intent to bypass federal laws illustrates their determination to satisfy their sponsors, it seems.
Nor does the consent form describe the treatment possible with psychotropic drugs, and the dangers of these drugs. And, if the parent refuses the recommended course of treatment by TeenScreen, a referral to the local child welfare agency might be made, which could result in their child being taken away from home and forcibly drugged.
This scares me.
Equally deceptive is the fact that TeenScreen advises local schools on how to circumvent federal law. The Protection of Pupil Rights Act (PPRA) protects the rights of parents by making instructional materials available for their inspection if the materials are to be used in connection with a survey, analysis, or evaluation in which their child is participating.
It also requires written parental consent before minors are required to take part in such a survey, analysis, or evaluation. Furthermore, public school districts, I understand, receive additional state funding as their students are diagnosed with disorders that do not exist. So everyone wins except the children they are destroying.
The focus on those who are suicidal is a bit ridiculous, since suicide rates in this age group have fallen greatly for the past several years now. And if that is the goal of TeenScreen, their methodology is incomplete:
Do they ask if the student has been, or is, irritable and apathetic? No.
Do they ask if the student has or is not sleeping well? No.
Do they ask if the student has frequent stomachaches? No.
Do they ask if the student has given away any of their possessions? No.
Do they ask if the student has access to a firearm? No.
Do they ask if, when a student states they have thought of suicide, if such a student has a plan? No.
Do they ask if a child has any sexual frustration? No
Do they ask if the child’s parents are together or unemployed? No
Do they ask how long a child has been depressed if they say that they are? No. (Major Depression lasts for at least two weeks straight.)
Does teenscreen try with great effort to diagnose those they screen regardless of the inaccuracy of such a diagnosis- it certainly seems so.
Wow- what experts they have at TeenScreen……..
TeenScreen tacitly considers the pharmaceutical industry their sponsor, as indicated by the amount of money this industry gives NAMI, which is about 3 million dollars a year. Eli Lilly is the top briber of NAMI, as they are the top drug company with the most prescribed psychotropic drugs, unfortunately.
Front groups, they are, that wear the masks of advocacy groups. Over half of the revenue of such groups comes from the pharmaceutical industry. TeenScreen is no different.
Ironically and sadly, lawsuits have been filed against TeenScreen for misdiagnosing children who have been prescribed psychotropic drugs, and have committed suicide likely as a result of the drugs prescribed to them. Sad that such children are put on these toxic medications.
TeenScreen links students with those who can pharmacologically treat them for unlikely mental disorders- to further grow the number of kids already on psychotropic drugs- which exceeds 10 million children. If students are assessed by the TeenScreen staff, and are found to require additional services, are connected with a case manager to arrange for appropriate intervention.
Really?
Intervention, when discussing the practice of medicine, is generally a derogatory term used by critics of a medical model in which patients are viewed as passive recipients receiving external treatments provided by the physician that have the effect of prolonging life. Enough said.
TeenScreen has and does bribe students to take the questions they provide that are clinically worthless with such things as movie passes, gift certificates, and so forth. TeenScreen also instructs schools on how to circumvent the PPRA for students, or the Hatch Amendment. There are other legal liabilities that may be created in school districts that implement the TeenScreen program.
It was sold to others that TeenScreen primarily was preventing the incidences of suicide, and this is baseless and without merit. First of all, the rare teen suicides have been declining over the years. Some children likely are void of a concept of suicide.
The screening is a 10 minute computer test with 14 questions that was developed in the psychiatric department of Columbia University. This is hardly enough information from a child to determine their mental status.
And TeenScreen is the perfect example of a flawed mental health screening organization. They ask about thoughts of suicide in their questions of students, but do not ask if the student has a plan for suicide. Nor do they ask if a student has a family history of suicide.
Also not asked by this inadequate screening group is whether the student has physical illness that is out of control, a risk factor for suicide. This is why TeenScreen is one of the most insidious government endorsed dragnets is a mental screening tool with an 84% false-positive rate--TeenScreen. Hard to imagine that a screening tool whose predictive accuracy is only 16%
And not asked by this apathetic screening group is if the student has any family and community support for their issues. Of the symptoms the student acknowledges experiencing while answering the questions of TeenScreen, not asked is the duration of these symptoms. The questions teenscreen does ask of these victims, however, are rather leading and manipulative.
Again, it is quite obvious that TeenScreen is nothing more than a front group for their big pharma sponsors who market psychotropic drugs, as teenscreen wears the mask of a support group for the youth. The activities of TeenScreen not only potentially damage children, but also invade their privacy quite obviously, and it is allowed too often, with frightening autonomy.
The staff of TeenScreen, as well as the employees of public schools, are in fact practicing medicine without a license, and are committing slander and libel by stating that a student has a mental problem in writing, or to anyone else. Deliberate ignorance with reckless disregard for the well being of innocent children. What wonderful people at TeenScreen.
So far, and now likely to increase with the addition of primary care doctor offices as targets for locations that TeenScreen now is seeking to question children, there are greater than 500 TeenScreen sites in most states in the U.S. This decision by TeenScreen to screen kids at these doctor offices will assure quicker prescriptions unneeded for the kids, likely. It’s a business plan alteration for TeenScreen.
TeenScreen’s quick start guides for their primary care focus include tips for interpreting the screening questionnaire results, tips on making a referral for patients identified as being at possible risk, as well as tips for coding and reimbursement.
If referred to a psychiatrist by a primary care doctor, there is a 90 percent chance that this doctor will prescribe a psychotropic drug for them that they likely do not need. If nothing else, TeenScreen may eventually increase teen suicides once many of the misidentified mentally flawed students are prescribed psychotropic drugs.
There are few if any benefits associated with TeenScreen, except increased profits for pharmaceutical companies, yet their objectives are potentially and progressively damaging to children.
There are concerns about the potentially for unnecessarily causing neurological damage to these students prescribed psychotropic drugs, as well as increased substance abuse and drug dependence.
By the pharmaceutical industry using these front organizations, they compromise scientific integrity under the color of authority. TeenScreen will increase drug use rather than prevent mental illness and the utilization of alternative treatment modalities.
TeenScreen is said to have a certified mental health professional as part of their screenings. I’m not sure what this person does for them, though.
According to Wikipedia:
The Certified Mental Health Professional (CMHP) certification is designed to measure an individual’s competency in performing the following job tasks. The job tasks are not presented in any particular order of importance.
1. Maintain confidentiality of records relating to clients’ treatment.
2. Encourage clients to express their feelings, discuss what is happening in their lives, and help them to develop insight into themselves and their relationships.
3. Guide clients in the development of skills and strategies for dealing with their problems.
4. Prepare and maintain all required treatment records and reports.
5. Counsel clients and patients, individually and in group sessions, to assist in overcoming dependencies, adjusting to life, and making changes.
6. Collect information about clients through interviews, observations, and tests.
7. Act as the client’s advocate in order to coordinate required services or to resolve emergency problems in crisis situations.
8. Develop and implement treatment plans based on clinical experience and knowledge.
9. Collaborate with other staff members to perform clinical assessments and develop treatment plans.
10. Evaluate client’s physical or mental condition based on review of client information.
The certified mental health professionals of TeenScreen only do a small fraction of their tasks- all that is necessary to get drugs for the students, ultimately.
As stated earlier, TeenScreen partners with the mental health front group, NAMI. TeenScreen is led by a former head of NAMI- the front group that is a whore for those psychotropic companies in the pharmaceutical industry. And TeenScreen shares the same unethical behavior as their sponsors, and other similar front groups, it appears quite clear.
For example NAMI, did not disclose that Eli Lilly’s marketing manager, Gerald Radke, ran its entire operation at one time. Radke, starting in 1999, worked for NAMI as a Lilly-paid management consultant.
Then, Radke left Eli Lilly and served as NAMI’s paid interim executive director until 2001. After NAMI, he ran the Pennsylvania Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, and now serves the Pennsylvania Health Department. Lilly, on average, pays NAMI about a million dollars a year, and these executive loans are mutually beneficial for both.
NAMI receives more than half its budget from some pharmaceutical companies. NAMI came under scrutiny by U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley in April of 2009. Senator Grassley's investigation of NAMI confirmed that a majority of their funding was coming from the pharmaceutical companies. They are a front group, and not a national mental health advocacy group as perceived to be.
To further prosper on this government initiative involving 25 federal agencies, TeenScreen got assigned the Hilton of required Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), which is the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP), a similar program Bush started as Governor of Texas, as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."
How TeenScreen can state that they have no interference with treatment options of those determined by them to be in need of psychotropic drugs, and then require TMAP only, is a bit of a contradiction.
TMAP was ultimately developed by the pharmaceutical industry- particularly those companies that market psychotropic drugs, in 1997. This theory that the primary purpose of the commission was to recommend implementation of TMAP based algorithms on a nationwide basis for profit.
TMAP, which requires the use of newer, more expensive drug, has itself has been the subject of controversy in Texas, Pennsylvania and other states where efforts have been made to implement its use.
Developed when Bush was governor of Texas, TMAP began as an alliance of individuals from the University of Texas, the pharmaceutical industry, and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas.
Through the guise of TMAP, the drug industry has methodically influenced the decision making of elected and appointed public officials to gain access to citizens in various mental health settings. The project was funded by a Robert Wood Johnson grant and by several drug companies.
Lilly's Zyprexa is one of the atypical antipsychotic drugs recommended as a first line drug in the Texas scheme. About 70 percent of Zyprexa sales are paid for by government health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.
All together Lilly reportedly contributed $103,000 to support TMAP. Heather Lusk, an Eli Lilly representative, said contributions to TMAP were "educational" grants made by a company grants office.
Roughly 25 percent of those screened by TeenScreen have been placed on psychotropic drugs as of today. If referred to a psychiatrist, over 90 percent of these children will be prescribed at least one psychotropic drug. Psychiatrists, of all physician specialties, are paid the most by the pharmaceutical industry.
What is being done about this very concerning and authoritarian program that is damaging children?
Presently there is a bill to prohibit the use of federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening programs, H.R. 2387, The Parental Consent Act. Such screenings violate the right of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children. Also, not consenting as parents with the recommendations of mental health screeners should not be a catalyst for a charge of child abuse or education neglect.
Ron Paul spoke before the House of Representatives in 2004 to introduce the Let Parents Raise Their Kids Act, which forbids federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental health screening f students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children, as it should be.
And there is The Parental Consent Act of 2005, or HR 181, which assures the right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.
There is also the Child Medication Safety Act of 2007 to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance in order to attend school, and for other purposes.
Yet there is already an Act in place that is has the ability to form this screening function based on the Individuals with Disabilities (IDEA) act, and not TeenScreen. Of course, the pharmaceutical companies would not profit if this were to occur.
Yet the best action can and should be done by others. By parents. By many parents who should know about this program.
If one desires to contact TeenScreen:
Leslie McGuire, M.S.W.
Director
Columbia University TeenScreen Program
1775 Broadway, Suite 610 or715
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (866) 833-6727
Fax: (212) 265-4454
E-mail: teenscreen@childpsych.columbia.edu
www.teenscreen.org
Dan Abshear
Monday, June 29, 2009
Unnecessary
The following was retrieved from www.pharmexec.com.
Mr Reidy was fired after his book was published by Eli Lilly.
While admittedly Jamie slacked his way though what was suppose to be a vocation, he did illustrate one point rather clearly- that pharmaceutical representatives are not needed at all:
Bad Rep? A Q&A with Jamie Reidy
By Ron Feemster
Jamie Reidy wrote the book on how to slack off as a pharma sales rep. Now, the sales manager's nightmare unveils more scams, sizes up the corporate selling culture—and reveals what finally made him care.
TO HEAR JAMIE REIDY TELL IT, HE'S ALWAYS BEEN THE SORT of slacker who succeeds. He did enough work to get decent grades in high school and at Notre Dame University, which he attended on an ROTC scholarship.
After graduation, First Lieutenant Reidy spent three years on easy duty, much of it in Japan, where he chafed at military discipline but stayed out of bunkers, except on the golf course.
When force reductions allowed him to leave the Army early, he jumped at the chance, even though he had no idea what his next job would be. Which is how he happened to be unemployed, living at his parents' New Jersey home, and answering the phone in boxer shorts when a Pfizer recruiter called.
Jamie Reidy
Reidy stumbled into a job at the world's largest pharmaceutical company, seduced more by the $40,000 starting salary than any desire to help patients. What he discovered there was an oddly
familiar military culture with rigorous training, rigid sales scripts, and an unyielding requirement to call on 40 doctors a week.
But he soon realized that no one checked up on him. He worked from home, and no one knew if he started his day at 10 a.m. or even went AWOL—as long as he made his quota and enough doctors signed for samples every week.
Within months, he had found a new way to spend weekdays at home in his boxers: He launched on the less-than-sterling career he chronicled in his tell-all book, Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman. He started work late and often took off at three in the afternoon.
He persuaded doctors to sign undated sample receipts, which allowed him to fake sales calls. Once, he traveled to London, England, without taking vacation time, even pretending to be in an Indiana parking lot when he returned his boss's calls.
Excerpt from Hard Sell
Of course, that only worked because he was good at selling pharmaceuticals. To his own surprise, he was promoted to Pfizer's new urology division, where he eventually—based on sales recorded two months after he quit—became the number-one Viagra sales rep in the nation.
In October of 2000, Reidy began a second career in pharmaceutical sales, which he took much more seriously. He often worked a full day selling oncology drugs for Eli Lilly, where he and his sales partner also reached number one in the country.
The company promoted him to oncology sales trainer—his favorite job in pharma—one he likens to the roving batting instructors of minor-league baseball. Lilly fired him when Hard Sell was published in March of this year.
His next book, about the Lilly oncology years, will be called Hard Feelings. Reidy lives in Manhattan Beach, California. He is writing a screenplay, and closing a deal for the movie rights to Hard Sell.
First, let's talk about the slacking. Are there stories about skipping work at Pfizer that aren't in the book? Could this book have been 500 pages long?
There are other stories I left out. Some of them I just forgot about. Like, I was at an Army reunion in Arkansas and my friend said, "What the hell? How come you didn't tell the story about the flowers?"
I had completely forgotten about our first Army reunion in Little Rock, Arkansas. It was a Friday and I was playing hooky, but I sent flowers to an office to celebrate their grand opening. I called the florist in Modesto, California, and placed the order there. So of course it looked like I went in the flower shop and ordered.
You went to Arkansas from California, and to feign being at this grand opening you called the local flower shop and had them deliver flowers? How did that go over? Didn't the doctors see through that?
No, they just thought: "That's so cool. Jamie Reidy sent flowers." My bosses never knew. I mean, they knew that I sent flowers. Because they had a sales receipt.
What have your friends in the industry said about your book?
One of my friends from Lilly called me up and said, "Reidy, You hit it on the nose, man. This book is hilarious. It's like reading my journal." And then he called me a bunch of names and said, "You ruined it for us all." He meant that nobody can work only 20 hours a week anymore.
I also heard from a district manager at another company who mailed me ten copies of my book to sign for everybody on his team. He wanted to show them that he knew all the tricks now, and that they shouldn't try to get away with anything. But he also said he thought there were some sales gems in there that they could learn from.
So are reps going to have to work more than 20 hours a week? How much has the job changed?
I've heard from people at Pfizer that they're totally cracking down on everything now. They are being a lot more vigilant and checking things out, possibly looking for different receipts. And then there's another old manager trick, which I hear they've used a couple times since the book came out. The manager calls you at lunchtime on Tuesday and says, "Hey, where are you going to be at one o'clock? I want to meet up with you." That is the ultimate panic attack right there.
You seem to have gone your own way on selling, too, by rejecting some of the regimented scripts and detailing procedures that Pfizer used, developing your own relationships with doctors, and trying to think on your feet. As far as you know, how do other people feel about doing things the company way?
I think there are two reactions. I think the public reaction is always, "Come on, we're grown-ups. We're smart, educated people. We can do our own thing. Don't baby us."
And people really push back on the script outwardly. But I think for a lot of people, the script makes the job even easier because you know exactly what you're supposed to say. And so now you've got this job where you're already programmed and you just—the phrase is "show up and throw up." You just regurgitate the sales pitch and the data that you've been taught to share.
And how well does that serve the company?
As my first boss always said, "Enthusiasm sells." And I would add that conviction sells. So if Pfizer or any company has spent thousands and thousands of dollars to come up with the marketing plan and the sales pitch, and you then take that and enthusiastically share it and don't make it sound like it's some canned spiel, that works.
If you can sort of flavor it a little bit, I think it helps the company, because they know exactly what they want us to say. If they have their soldiers talking the company line and the company's research is correct, then that should further sales.
Even when there are three or four people calling on the same doctor, talking about the same product and giving the same basic speech?
Now we run into problems. That's where doctors have caught on over the years and said, "Hey, this is all canned." Say another rep and I both call on Dr. Smith, and this Dr. Smith doesn't really pay attention to me. He's sorting his mail as I'm giving him my pitch.
And then the other rep comes in two weeks later and the doctor's got more time and he's listening to the detail and he's like, this all sounds really familiar. And I come in two weeks later and he says, "Wait a minute. This is the same stuff that other guy just told me."
That's when we start to look like storm troopers. I'm not a resource for that doctor, anymore. I'm just like everybody else. I'm the UPS guy dropping samples off. I'm a well-dressed caterer with lunch for the nurses.
So where is the solution? You were on the front lines. What do you think would work best?
I think that they should reinstate our ability to take doctors golfing, and to Laker games, and to Celine Dion shows. But, of course, they had to do away with that to make it look like we weren't buying the doctors' love, which is what we were doing, and what I am advocating.
Are you serious?
In all seriousness, I think the companies need to cut back the sales force by half. When I started, there were about 35,000 reps in America. And now I read there are between 90,000 and 100,000. Doctors are just fed up.
We need fewer reps, because now the value of every rep gets diminished. Once the doctor figures out that John, Jamie, Jenny, and Sheila are all going to tell him the same thing, then none of us have any value anymore, even though I used to be a valued source to him.
Now we're all the same and it doesn't matter which rep he sees. It actually doesn't matter if he sees anybody, because they're all going to give him the same company-sponsored line.
If you talk to reps who have been around for 15 or 20 years, they all lament the loss of the old days when they were able to sit down with a doctor and discuss the merits of each drug in treating the 57-year-old Hispanic woman with diabetes and a history of heart disease in her family. Reps were much more of a resource back then. Now we're just extensions of multibillion-dollar companies.
Do senior reps feel like they have to play this diminished role to keep their jobs?
The old guys question the mindset that you have to get, say, ten signatures a day for samples. There's that pressure when your boss comes back to you and reminds you that you only had 38 signatures last week. It drives the old guys crazy. They say, "Look, I'm a sales guy. My job is to drive sales. I'm not a sample guy."
There was a great story at Lilly. We didn't even have samples in the oncology division, but Lilly started pushing us to make more sales calls. We had to make five a day, which doesn't seem like anything.
But in oncology you've got to share data all the time, so you wait around for hours if you need to see somebody. So probably the most seasoned rep in the Lilly oncology division picks his boss up in the morning at 8:30 for a ride-along. He goes to a big office to start his day and has good discussions with five doctors. Then he drives the boss back to his hotel.
And the boss says, "What are we doing? " The rep says, "Oh, I'm done. All you care about is that I see five doctors. I just saw my five doctors." He wasn't being a smart-aleck. He was saying, "You won't fire me for this. I want to dramatically demonstrate what's going on at this company."
So the boss calls headquarters and says, "We've got a problem. What am I going to tell the guy? He's right. That's all we're asking for."
What did the company do?
Let's say they shifted focus. They said, "Listen, that five is a goal. We would like you to strive for that, but by all means don't avoid your biggest customer just because it always takes three hours and you have to get your five calls a day." So it was actually an awesome wake-up call. The reps of the country rejoiced.
You worked as a roving sales trainer, so you got to see a lot of different reps interact with doctors. How did you come to see the job differently?
The really interesting observation for me as a trainer—the second guy in the waiting room—was how in-the-way drug reps are, and how much we stand out. Patients know exactly what we're doing. I guess I sort of blocked it out as a rep, all the dirty looks you get from patients. It was really an eye-opener for me. I just felt, wow, we don't belong here.
Imagine you're in the doctor's office with your mom who has breast cancer. The doctor's an hour late, and while you're waiting two well-dressed people walk in with bags of M&Ms and chat it up with the nurses. Then they go back and they're back there for a half hour. You know why the doctor is late. And that gets very upsetting for people, especially when you're dealing with something as sensitive as cancer. Man, I'd be crawling in my skin to get out of there.
Another thing struck me about your book. On the one hand, you were the slacker guy with an ironic distance from his job. But on the other hand, you got pretty excited about your products. Where did that come from? How much of it was trained into you?
I think it came from the brainwashing that happens in training. And I got it more so at Pfizer than I did at Lilly, because the Pfizer training staff was so impressive, and the people they kept bringing in to speak to us were so impressive. They keep rolling out the next drug, which is the best, and here is why. So you learn everything—or at least you think you learn everything—about your competing drugs.
I will still to this day argue why Zithromax was the best antibiotic in America. I can still give you the five reasons why it's better than Biaxin. And I will argue to my dying day that Zoloft was a better drug than Prozac and Paxil. And don't even get me started on Zyrtec and Claritin.
But the great thing is, if you talk to people from Lilly, they'll say that Prozac was a way better drug than Zoloft, and boom, boom, boom, here's why. And the Biaxin people say the same thing. So I think it's just like you always think your school team is better—whether it really is or not. You get that spirit going, combined with a little data to support your position, and you've got a pretty strong start.
That might explain why doctors take much of what companies say with a grain of salt. Doctors say they want studies that were not funded by the pharmaceutical industry. As drug reps, you're only getting the data the company gives you, right?
Correct. Here's an interesting thing I never knew—and if you want to talk about being na and drinking the Kool-Aid, go ahead—I never knew that studies are done, but we don't see the results. That was news to me, and I don't know if I'm the lone idiot who didn't realize that. But to find out that all these trials were done, and the results were not released, that was certainly an eye opener.
But there was more than blind belief involved, wasn't there? At some point after you were hired at Lilly, at least, you started wanting to do your job: your real job of selling doctors and solving patients' problems. What changed?
I'll tell you what changed. When you walk into an oncology office, and you're in the back looking at patients hooked up to chemotherapy IV tubes, and you're listening to people with lung cancer cough, and you see people with no hair, and they're all shriveled up. You say to yourself, you know what? If you really believe in your drug, it's a good thing to get out there and try to help these patients. It's a very powerful experience to stand in the back of an oncology office.
Would you go back if you could, assuming that another company would hire you tomorrow?
In order to stay true to myself, I have to give this writing thing my full attention. I can be so easily distracted. But if I went back, I would only work in oncology.
That's really where it's at. You deal with the ultimate situation and try to discuss life and death. Once you've worked with oncologists, and seen what they're dealing with and the level of data they get into, then you really are an expert, and it's a lot more compelling to go to work every day.
So what would it have taken to get you to do your job at Pfizer?
I don't really know. It would have had to be something compelling like that, because it wasn't money. Money doesn't drive me. People who sell antidepressants will say, "Hey listen, that patient could have killed himself. I might save somebody's life." Okay, that's two iterations away. Someone went on my drug and lived longer directly because of it. Now that's something.
A breast cancer patient in Hawaii hugged me. And she thanked me. You would have thought I invented Gemzar. That was something I'll never forget.
Do you miss being a drug rep?
I certainly miss helping patients, because in spite of all the jokes I make in the book and all the heat that the industry takes in the media, you do get to help patients. Whether the doctors switch from Paxil to Zoloft and the patient does a lot better, or the patient goes on your lung-cancer chemotherapy and makes it to her granddaughter's wedding, you can really affect somebody's life. I miss that.
I find that I really miss the day-to-day human interaction of walking into the offices that are mine. I used to feel kind of like the TV character, Norm, when he walks into the bar at Cheers and everybody says, "Norm!"
You also started your career as a writer while you worked as a sales rep at Lilly. How long did it take you to write the book?
It probably took me three years but—well, it won't be a surprise since you read the book—I was really lazy about it. I would put it down for two months at a time. So it's tough to say with all the starts and stops how long it really took me.
Do you miss that lifestyle? Having the rep job with a regular paycheck, and writing the book in your spare time?
I do. Being a pharmaceutical salesman is the greatest day job in the world. Every aspiring artist, musician, and writer should become a drug rep, because you make a lot of money and you don't have to work. You know, you can get away with working 20 hours a week.
Jamie Reidy Relaxes under the pier For most of his career in pharma, Reidy focused on documenting work he didn't do. Now he goes to the beach without faking a sales call.
Jamie Reidy
Excerpt from Hard Sell
Mr Reidy was fired after his book was published by Eli Lilly.
While admittedly Jamie slacked his way though what was suppose to be a vocation, he did illustrate one point rather clearly- that pharmaceutical representatives are not needed at all:
Bad Rep? A Q&A with Jamie Reidy
By Ron Feemster
Jamie Reidy wrote the book on how to slack off as a pharma sales rep. Now, the sales manager's nightmare unveils more scams, sizes up the corporate selling culture—and reveals what finally made him care.
TO HEAR JAMIE REIDY TELL IT, HE'S ALWAYS BEEN THE SORT of slacker who succeeds. He did enough work to get decent grades in high school and at Notre Dame University, which he attended on an ROTC scholarship.
After graduation, First Lieutenant Reidy spent three years on easy duty, much of it in Japan, where he chafed at military discipline but stayed out of bunkers, except on the golf course.
When force reductions allowed him to leave the Army early, he jumped at the chance, even though he had no idea what his next job would be. Which is how he happened to be unemployed, living at his parents' New Jersey home, and answering the phone in boxer shorts when a Pfizer recruiter called.
Jamie Reidy
Reidy stumbled into a job at the world's largest pharmaceutical company, seduced more by the $40,000 starting salary than any desire to help patients. What he discovered there was an oddly
familiar military culture with rigorous training, rigid sales scripts, and an unyielding requirement to call on 40 doctors a week.
But he soon realized that no one checked up on him. He worked from home, and no one knew if he started his day at 10 a.m. or even went AWOL—as long as he made his quota and enough doctors signed for samples every week.
Within months, he had found a new way to spend weekdays at home in his boxers: He launched on the less-than-sterling career he chronicled in his tell-all book, Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman. He started work late and often took off at three in the afternoon.
He persuaded doctors to sign undated sample receipts, which allowed him to fake sales calls. Once, he traveled to London, England, without taking vacation time, even pretending to be in an Indiana parking lot when he returned his boss's calls.
Excerpt from Hard Sell
Of course, that only worked because he was good at selling pharmaceuticals. To his own surprise, he was promoted to Pfizer's new urology division, where he eventually—based on sales recorded two months after he quit—became the number-one Viagra sales rep in the nation.
In October of 2000, Reidy began a second career in pharmaceutical sales, which he took much more seriously. He often worked a full day selling oncology drugs for Eli Lilly, where he and his sales partner also reached number one in the country.
The company promoted him to oncology sales trainer—his favorite job in pharma—one he likens to the roving batting instructors of minor-league baseball. Lilly fired him when Hard Sell was published in March of this year.
His next book, about the Lilly oncology years, will be called Hard Feelings. Reidy lives in Manhattan Beach, California. He is writing a screenplay, and closing a deal for the movie rights to Hard Sell.
First, let's talk about the slacking. Are there stories about skipping work at Pfizer that aren't in the book? Could this book have been 500 pages long?
There are other stories I left out. Some of them I just forgot about. Like, I was at an Army reunion in Arkansas and my friend said, "What the hell? How come you didn't tell the story about the flowers?"
I had completely forgotten about our first Army reunion in Little Rock, Arkansas. It was a Friday and I was playing hooky, but I sent flowers to an office to celebrate their grand opening. I called the florist in Modesto, California, and placed the order there. So of course it looked like I went in the flower shop and ordered.
You went to Arkansas from California, and to feign being at this grand opening you called the local flower shop and had them deliver flowers? How did that go over? Didn't the doctors see through that?
No, they just thought: "That's so cool. Jamie Reidy sent flowers." My bosses never knew. I mean, they knew that I sent flowers. Because they had a sales receipt.
What have your friends in the industry said about your book?
One of my friends from Lilly called me up and said, "Reidy, You hit it on the nose, man. This book is hilarious. It's like reading my journal." And then he called me a bunch of names and said, "You ruined it for us all." He meant that nobody can work only 20 hours a week anymore.
I also heard from a district manager at another company who mailed me ten copies of my book to sign for everybody on his team. He wanted to show them that he knew all the tricks now, and that they shouldn't try to get away with anything. But he also said he thought there were some sales gems in there that they could learn from.
So are reps going to have to work more than 20 hours a week? How much has the job changed?
I've heard from people at Pfizer that they're totally cracking down on everything now. They are being a lot more vigilant and checking things out, possibly looking for different receipts. And then there's another old manager trick, which I hear they've used a couple times since the book came out. The manager calls you at lunchtime on Tuesday and says, "Hey, where are you going to be at one o'clock? I want to meet up with you." That is the ultimate panic attack right there.
You seem to have gone your own way on selling, too, by rejecting some of the regimented scripts and detailing procedures that Pfizer used, developing your own relationships with doctors, and trying to think on your feet. As far as you know, how do other people feel about doing things the company way?
I think there are two reactions. I think the public reaction is always, "Come on, we're grown-ups. We're smart, educated people. We can do our own thing. Don't baby us."
And people really push back on the script outwardly. But I think for a lot of people, the script makes the job even easier because you know exactly what you're supposed to say. And so now you've got this job where you're already programmed and you just—the phrase is "show up and throw up." You just regurgitate the sales pitch and the data that you've been taught to share.
And how well does that serve the company?
As my first boss always said, "Enthusiasm sells." And I would add that conviction sells. So if Pfizer or any company has spent thousands and thousands of dollars to come up with the marketing plan and the sales pitch, and you then take that and enthusiastically share it and don't make it sound like it's some canned spiel, that works.
If you can sort of flavor it a little bit, I think it helps the company, because they know exactly what they want us to say. If they have their soldiers talking the company line and the company's research is correct, then that should further sales.
Even when there are three or four people calling on the same doctor, talking about the same product and giving the same basic speech?
Now we run into problems. That's where doctors have caught on over the years and said, "Hey, this is all canned." Say another rep and I both call on Dr. Smith, and this Dr. Smith doesn't really pay attention to me. He's sorting his mail as I'm giving him my pitch.
And then the other rep comes in two weeks later and the doctor's got more time and he's listening to the detail and he's like, this all sounds really familiar. And I come in two weeks later and he says, "Wait a minute. This is the same stuff that other guy just told me."
That's when we start to look like storm troopers. I'm not a resource for that doctor, anymore. I'm just like everybody else. I'm the UPS guy dropping samples off. I'm a well-dressed caterer with lunch for the nurses.
So where is the solution? You were on the front lines. What do you think would work best?
I think that they should reinstate our ability to take doctors golfing, and to Laker games, and to Celine Dion shows. But, of course, they had to do away with that to make it look like we weren't buying the doctors' love, which is what we were doing, and what I am advocating.
Are you serious?
In all seriousness, I think the companies need to cut back the sales force by half. When I started, there were about 35,000 reps in America. And now I read there are between 90,000 and 100,000. Doctors are just fed up.
We need fewer reps, because now the value of every rep gets diminished. Once the doctor figures out that John, Jamie, Jenny, and Sheila are all going to tell him the same thing, then none of us have any value anymore, even though I used to be a valued source to him.
Now we're all the same and it doesn't matter which rep he sees. It actually doesn't matter if he sees anybody, because they're all going to give him the same company-sponsored line.
If you talk to reps who have been around for 15 or 20 years, they all lament the loss of the old days when they were able to sit down with a doctor and discuss the merits of each drug in treating the 57-year-old Hispanic woman with diabetes and a history of heart disease in her family. Reps were much more of a resource back then. Now we're just extensions of multibillion-dollar companies.
Do senior reps feel like they have to play this diminished role to keep their jobs?
The old guys question the mindset that you have to get, say, ten signatures a day for samples. There's that pressure when your boss comes back to you and reminds you that you only had 38 signatures last week. It drives the old guys crazy. They say, "Look, I'm a sales guy. My job is to drive sales. I'm not a sample guy."
There was a great story at Lilly. We didn't even have samples in the oncology division, but Lilly started pushing us to make more sales calls. We had to make five a day, which doesn't seem like anything.
But in oncology you've got to share data all the time, so you wait around for hours if you need to see somebody. So probably the most seasoned rep in the Lilly oncology division picks his boss up in the morning at 8:30 for a ride-along. He goes to a big office to start his day and has good discussions with five doctors. Then he drives the boss back to his hotel.
And the boss says, "What are we doing? " The rep says, "Oh, I'm done. All you care about is that I see five doctors. I just saw my five doctors." He wasn't being a smart-aleck. He was saying, "You won't fire me for this. I want to dramatically demonstrate what's going on at this company."
So the boss calls headquarters and says, "We've got a problem. What am I going to tell the guy? He's right. That's all we're asking for."
What did the company do?
Let's say they shifted focus. They said, "Listen, that five is a goal. We would like you to strive for that, but by all means don't avoid your biggest customer just because it always takes three hours and you have to get your five calls a day." So it was actually an awesome wake-up call. The reps of the country rejoiced.
You worked as a roving sales trainer, so you got to see a lot of different reps interact with doctors. How did you come to see the job differently?
The really interesting observation for me as a trainer—the second guy in the waiting room—was how in-the-way drug reps are, and how much we stand out. Patients know exactly what we're doing. I guess I sort of blocked it out as a rep, all the dirty looks you get from patients. It was really an eye-opener for me. I just felt, wow, we don't belong here.
Imagine you're in the doctor's office with your mom who has breast cancer. The doctor's an hour late, and while you're waiting two well-dressed people walk in with bags of M&Ms and chat it up with the nurses. Then they go back and they're back there for a half hour. You know why the doctor is late. And that gets very upsetting for people, especially when you're dealing with something as sensitive as cancer. Man, I'd be crawling in my skin to get out of there.
Another thing struck me about your book. On the one hand, you were the slacker guy with an ironic distance from his job. But on the other hand, you got pretty excited about your products. Where did that come from? How much of it was trained into you?
I think it came from the brainwashing that happens in training. And I got it more so at Pfizer than I did at Lilly, because the Pfizer training staff was so impressive, and the people they kept bringing in to speak to us were so impressive. They keep rolling out the next drug, which is the best, and here is why. So you learn everything—or at least you think you learn everything—about your competing drugs.
I will still to this day argue why Zithromax was the best antibiotic in America. I can still give you the five reasons why it's better than Biaxin. And I will argue to my dying day that Zoloft was a better drug than Prozac and Paxil. And don't even get me started on Zyrtec and Claritin.
But the great thing is, if you talk to people from Lilly, they'll say that Prozac was a way better drug than Zoloft, and boom, boom, boom, here's why. And the Biaxin people say the same thing. So I think it's just like you always think your school team is better—whether it really is or not. You get that spirit going, combined with a little data to support your position, and you've got a pretty strong start.
That might explain why doctors take much of what companies say with a grain of salt. Doctors say they want studies that were not funded by the pharmaceutical industry. As drug reps, you're only getting the data the company gives you, right?
Correct. Here's an interesting thing I never knew—and if you want to talk about being na and drinking the Kool-Aid, go ahead—I never knew that studies are done, but we don't see the results. That was news to me, and I don't know if I'm the lone idiot who didn't realize that. But to find out that all these trials were done, and the results were not released, that was certainly an eye opener.
But there was more than blind belief involved, wasn't there? At some point after you were hired at Lilly, at least, you started wanting to do your job: your real job of selling doctors and solving patients' problems. What changed?
I'll tell you what changed. When you walk into an oncology office, and you're in the back looking at patients hooked up to chemotherapy IV tubes, and you're listening to people with lung cancer cough, and you see people with no hair, and they're all shriveled up. You say to yourself, you know what? If you really believe in your drug, it's a good thing to get out there and try to help these patients. It's a very powerful experience to stand in the back of an oncology office.
Would you go back if you could, assuming that another company would hire you tomorrow?
In order to stay true to myself, I have to give this writing thing my full attention. I can be so easily distracted. But if I went back, I would only work in oncology.
That's really where it's at. You deal with the ultimate situation and try to discuss life and death. Once you've worked with oncologists, and seen what they're dealing with and the level of data they get into, then you really are an expert, and it's a lot more compelling to go to work every day.
So what would it have taken to get you to do your job at Pfizer?
I don't really know. It would have had to be something compelling like that, because it wasn't money. Money doesn't drive me. People who sell antidepressants will say, "Hey listen, that patient could have killed himself. I might save somebody's life." Okay, that's two iterations away. Someone went on my drug and lived longer directly because of it. Now that's something.
A breast cancer patient in Hawaii hugged me. And she thanked me. You would have thought I invented Gemzar. That was something I'll never forget.
Do you miss being a drug rep?
I certainly miss helping patients, because in spite of all the jokes I make in the book and all the heat that the industry takes in the media, you do get to help patients. Whether the doctors switch from Paxil to Zoloft and the patient does a lot better, or the patient goes on your lung-cancer chemotherapy and makes it to her granddaughter's wedding, you can really affect somebody's life. I miss that.
I find that I really miss the day-to-day human interaction of walking into the offices that are mine. I used to feel kind of like the TV character, Norm, when he walks into the bar at Cheers and everybody says, "Norm!"
You also started your career as a writer while you worked as a sales rep at Lilly. How long did it take you to write the book?
It probably took me three years but—well, it won't be a surprise since you read the book—I was really lazy about it. I would put it down for two months at a time. So it's tough to say with all the starts and stops how long it really took me.
Do you miss that lifestyle? Having the rep job with a regular paycheck, and writing the book in your spare time?
I do. Being a pharmaceutical salesman is the greatest day job in the world. Every aspiring artist, musician, and writer should become a drug rep, because you make a lot of money and you don't have to work. You know, you can get away with working 20 hours a week.
Jamie Reidy Relaxes under the pier For most of his career in pharma, Reidy focused on documenting work he didn't do. Now he goes to the beach without faking a sales call.
Jamie Reidy
Excerpt from Hard Sell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
