What do you when you have a guest that makes your day and changes your audience’s life? You bring him back, of course.
The first time we booked Sir Ken Robinson I was excited because like millions of others I had seen his inspiring 2006 TED talk about creativity and had read his books. But I wasn’t prepared for the very real person behind the personality of “Sir Ken”. And although I knew he’d be motivating, I didn’t expect the dramatic and immediate impact that interview would have on individual listeners.
Many of you contacted me to say how that show moved you to go back to school, launch that business, change jobs, or take some time to seriously rethink where you are, how you got here, and what to do next. There’s very little that compares to getting this kind of feedback from you.
But this was also personal for me. Personal from the standpoint that I have been there and done that with dramatic changes in my work life—from selling pills, to making movies, to launching this radio show. I know how difficult it can be to make that jump and how incredibly sweet life can taste when you do. So I’m here. Use me (or the show) if you’re ready to bust out...and know that you’re not alone.
Noteworthy:
There’s one more thing about Sir Ken that is worth mentioning. In my role as host, I’m typically the one who asks the questions and thoroughly researches the guests. My job is to draw information and emotional responses from them and generally that is a one way street.
But Sir Ken surprised me. He asked me questions back. And he cared to hear my answers. He knew what to ask because he had actually taken the time to find out a little about me before coming on air. Because of that, this was not just an interview, but an authentic conversation. I realized I enjoyed it so much, not because it was rare in my line of work, but because it’s rare in life.
It’s listening that makes people so damn unforgettable…
My most recent interview with Sir Ken: Feel the fear...and jump!
And here's my monologue about becoming "fearless".
I watched this speech last week and could not get it out of my head. And then it hit me. I've been so darn hungry for a female hero. I knew J.K. Rowling was a great writer. But who knew she was so funny, and charmingly shy, and such a compassionate leader?
This woman has certainly given us so much more than Harry Potter. And I'm overwhelmed with gratitude.
Ok, what I don't mention above is that there was a lot about Ayn Rand's personal philosophy that I disagree with. And that led me to the question..."Can you love Rand's books and not her political and economic views?"
I came to the conclusion that in this case, you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. But it also led to a very heated (and fun!) discussion with my guest Anne C. Heller, the author of the biography Ayn Rand and the World She Made.
I would so love to hear your comments on The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged or Ayn Rand herself. Life changing stuff.
He was given six months to live...it's now eleven years later.
This astonishing interview will change how you look at cancer and its treatment for good.
In 1999 Jerry Brunetti was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma and told that he had as little as six months to live. Forgoing traditional radiation and chemotherapy, Jerry used his vast knowledge of farming and animal nutrition and embarked on his own journey to become cancer free.
Jerry shares how he defied the cancer odds and took charge of his health using a holistic approach. Recruiting a team of medical coaches, he focused on immune modulation using natural substances, a routine of supplements and rigorous nutrition, and detoxification. Here he busts the cancer myths and offers advice to others who are battling this epidemic disease.
I wrote a post on this awhile back pointing y'all to an outside blog. Unfortunately, that blog is no longer live, so I did some digging and came up with my own library of funny, disturbing, and thought provoking vintage drug ads.
But has anything really changed? (See my Huff Post piece "Pharma: Still Chasing Skirts".) Because while all these ads take us for "chumps", if you take a close look, you'll see they're particularly insulting towards women. (And I'm not even overly sensitive to things, darnit.)
So please take a look and have a few laughs along the way. I'd also be honored to have you weigh in with your favorite.
Note:Be sure to check out the Quaalude ad…are they ‘quietly’ suggesting the doctor also take it? And what in the hell is up with the 'Stabilize the Epileptic' ad with the girl on the swing?? And how about the Shaun Cassidy look alike in the Midol ad? Okay then, enjoy.
In order to understand the full impact the pharmaceutical industry has over our health care system, it is critical to know the multiple layers of influence:
1. Direct to Physician Promotion: There are 90-100,000 pharmaceutical sales reps pounding the pavement (having almost 1 million conversations per day) trying to coerce physicians to write more prescriptions of their drugs. Are these reps nurses or pharmacists? Do they possess any kind of science background? Typical reps are hired for their Ken and Barbie appearances and have more experience wining and dining and leading cheerleading squads than any form of medical experience. These reps are compensated and evaluated solely on their ability to sell more pills. Providing physicians with "free samples" of the newest drugs on the market is another effective marketing tool.Additionally over 70 percent of physician CME credits (continuing medical education) are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors are also employed by the industry as speakers, ghost writers of landmark studies, and consultants. All of this leads to an incredible conflict of interest with the medical community. (See "Side Effects" starring Katherine Heigl. Based on my decade selling pills.)
2. Direct to Consumer Advertising: Our television sets, magazines, radio stations, and increasingly the internet are bombarded with beautiful and effective drug ads. "Effective" meaning they drive sales of the newest, most expensive, and often least proven drugs on the market. We as consumers are marching into our doctors’ offices in record numbers and demanding the latest and greatest pills on the market. These ads paint a beautiful Norman Rockwell life on the screen. They do a wonderful job of convincing us that we too can be this happy, this sexy, this beautiful if only we would take this pill. Overall, it is estimated that $30 billion dollars per year is spent on the marketing and advertising of prescription drugs (which is twice as much as what is spent on research and development). Who pays for this? We do in the form of exorbitant drug pricing.
3. Pharma Funding of the FDA: Due to PDUFA (Prescription Drug User Fee Act), the FDA is currently on the payroll of the drug industry. This act allows companies to pay fees to the FDA for speedy approval of their drugs, thus a large amount of the FDA funding comes directly from Big Pharma. This creates a significant conflict of interest as was bore out in the Vioxx debacle and puts into question whether the FDA can adequately be a watchdog of pharma and protect the American public. Following is a quote from Jerome Hoffman MD of UCLA from my documentary "Money Talks: Profits Before Patient Safety": "We have to have the clout and the influence and the organization to make it so that they can’t blithely go along making the FDA be something that has been widely and famously called a servant of the drug industry. We have to make it so the FDA is a servant to us."
4. Pharma Funding of the Research: Right now, 70 percent of all new drug research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry and 30 percent is government funded. With industry funding comes great control over the outcome of the data.Furthermore, study conclusions are often written by physicians hired by the drug company and published in major medical journals that take millions in drug advertising funds. These journals also receive funds for providing hundreds of thousands of "reprints" of favorable studies for the industry to distribute to physicians. But the reality is that the researchers themselves become financially beholden to the pharma company in question...their livelihoods depend on their ability to land the next big contract. This clouds their ability to deliver anything other than the results the company is seeking.Following is another great quote from Jerome Hoffman MD of UCLA: "Suffice it to say that when drug companies set the research agenda, do the research, design the research, have tremendous influence over the people who get to write it up, and in fact, have tremendous influence over the journals that publish it, then it’s not surprising that so much of what we think we know is tremendously distorted."
5. Largest Lobbying Group on Capitol Hill:Pharma has shown that another cost effective use of their money is to dominate Capitol Hill in order to get their way regarding key legislation. They are a large and powerful lobbying group who "reward" lawmakers if they vote in their favor. These rewards include, you guessed it, high paying jobs as lobbyists and consultants. A recent example of this is in regard to the Medicare’s prescription drug bill. See the excellent feature by 60 Minutes on this issue (link below).
Given the above, where can doctors and patients go to get unbiased information regarding prescription medication? Good question. One interim option is a division of Consumer Reports that shares 'best in class' as reviewed by an independent (from pharma money) body. In the meantime, we have dangerous drugs making their way to the market and a growing crisis in the attainability of affordable health care. All the while the pharma industry is pocketing enormous profits often at the expense of public health.
The information in this entry has been pared down in an effort to provide a concise summary. Following are additional resources: "Money Talks: Profits Before Patient Safety" (you can now watch the entire film free online.)
"Side Effects" (Based on my decade selling pills. Starring Katherine Heigl and now available on DVD from Warner Bros.)
In the spirit of going for it and doing what you love, this week’s pick is a vintage video clip of Lance Armstrong winning his first national championship sprint triathlon at age 18.
You’ll laugh to see him as a young buck with tall 80's hair and a high-pitched voice. You'll get goosebumps at the talent fortitude he showed even at this tender age. And you might even get choked up when you consider that this was Lance before the cancer and the hellacious treatment he had to undergo…only to go on and win the Tour de France SEVEN times.
Related: What lights your fire? Are you doing it? (Listen to my interview with Sir Ken Robinson--the world's leading and most beloved thinker on creativity.)
A High Performance Life (Chris Carmichael, Lance Armstrong's coach, weighs in on fitness, biking and coaching Lance.)
Next week, I'll be doing a show on texting while driving (with an emphasis on keeping our kids safe.) In the interim, I wanted to share the following PSA from the UK. Warning: This is a very graphic, haunting video. But it may be the most effective way to reach our teens (and ourselves?) about the dangers of text driving.
Please share with others and comment below with your thoughts on the video. I'd also love to know if you think this should be shown in schools.
It's the omega-3s...and the cows get it from GRASS, not corn.
Yes, pastured cows and chickens conjure up nice warm and fuzzy images of animals actually enjoying their lives which goes a long way with all of us sickened by industrialized farming practices. But beyond the cruelty aspects, lurks a very important public health reason to choose grass-fed...
As more research is piling in on the importance of omega-3s in our diet (actually, the correct balance of omega-3 to omega-6) it is becoming clear that feeding cows corn harms not only the cows (who were not genetically designed to eat grain), but the people who eat the meat. That's us. You and me.
If the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 is too high, you end up with things like heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer and every other hell related to inflammation.
So how does 'grass-fed' factor in?
Omega-3s are found in grass. Omega-6s in corn. Corn is cheap. When we made the critical mistake of shifting animals to corn as their primary feed to increase profits, we threw off the balance of omega-6s to omega-3s in American diets. Going from a two-to-one ratio respectively to a ten-to-one ratio.
So that quick buck that was made by shoveling corn into our cows and chickens (and now even salmon) is costing you your health and threatening to bankrupt our healthcare system. As Michael Pollan says in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma, "We may one day come to regard this shift as one of the most deleterious dietary changes wrought by the industrialization of our food chain."
The meat industry is banking on the fact that you will be asleep at the wheel on this one. Make the decision to know and to vote with your wallet. Support your local organic grass-fed farmers...they are our heroes.
About the blogger...
I'm a filmmaker, writer, and talk radio host. After a decade of schlepping drugs for big pharma, I finally got the ovaries to walk away from my career as a pill pusher and share what I knew on the big screen. I wrote and directed the feature film Side Effects (starring Katherine Heigl) as well as...(Read full bio)
The making of Side Effects starring Katherine Heigl
