Latest / Radically Genuine / 179. Misleading Medical Claims Are Now the Norm

Transcript

179. Misleading Medical Claims Are Now the Norm · Radically Genuine

• Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (00:02.178) Welcome to the radically genuine podcast. I'm Dr. Roger McFillin. I'm alone in the studio today. That's probably a good thing. There's a lot I have to talk about. I think today it's going to be a conversation where I hope that through logical analysis, critical thinking, I can make some really important points about how we need to protect ourselves from misleading health claims and why informed consent has become. nearly impossible in our medical landscape. I do want to provide what I think to be very reasonable recommendations on how to protect yourself and your family. But I want to start this off with something that I've been doing a personal experience experiment this week. If you've been following me on X, you might've seen some of my exchanges this past weekend, or a couple of weekends ago now by the time I released this episode, but I decided to start a ketogenic diet. Okay. I've done this before, intermittently, and it's mostly my own experiment with myself, which is really important because we're all in N of one. And it's a very, very difficult, if it's impossible to say that there's one intervention is going to have the same response for all people. The complexity of human beings is vast as well as other lifestyles. But as I'm recording this, I'm more than seven days in. in ketosis. So that's considered a long term ketogenic state, even just a week. I've been in ketosis before, I believe in metabolic flexibility. So I intermittently fast, I want to be able to feel fine in ketosis or when I'm utilizing my glycogen storages. But being in ketosis for an extended period of time is something I've only done a few times experimentally. Okay, now I want to preface this by saying I'm a healthy individual. To my knowledge, I have no metabolic issues, and I really do believe in metabolic flexibility. I am in favor of the work that people like Georgia Eadie and Christopher Palmer are doing around ketogenic interventions in mental health. My problem is often the claims that are made, and I'll get into this throughout the podcast, Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (02:27.854) because I believe that there's a pattern of this in American culture and Western societies where we make claims that aren't supported by science, but they certainly support either a product or an individual's research and then people are harmed by it. So for me in particular, something very interesting happens when I shift into ketosis for more than a short period of time. I become what would be labeled as hypomanic. All right, what does that mean? Um, a little bit irritable, a bit anxious, find it difficult to sit still. My sleep quality deteriorates. I mean, if you can ask my wife, you know, she'll know when I'm doing this because she can see I'm a little bit on edge. Now I'm well-trained professional and I have to do work as a psychologist sitting in a chair. I need my concentration and focus. and it certainly would not benefit me to be impulsive or reactive to any of my clients. So I'm able to manage this to a degree. I'm also knowing that I'm experimenting with my own body and I'm very attuned with my own body. And so I'm more than seven days in. I'm gonna continue this, because I wanna see if it shifts or changes, but I wanna make a point, right? First, if I walked into a doctor's office today and just simply reported these symptoms without any context, which is more often the case than not, I'd certainly be walking out with a diagnosis of bipolar two disorder and a prescription for, could be some form of a mood stabilizer, a combination of different drugs. They label it as a mood stabilizer. If this doctor didn't ask about my diet, my recent lifestyle changes, or consider that these symptoms perfectly correlate with a metabolic shift that I've intentionally created. Now I did this intentionally, experimentally, this is my profession. I study these things often, I'm interested in it. For the second time I'm reading Christopher Palmer's book, Brain Energy. But for the average person, they're not that attuned. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (04:51.968) One of the things that's really important in doing the work that I do is that there are real issues with short-term recall and the accuracy of short-term recall and long-term recall for human beings. And there's a scientific principle, post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy after this, therefore, because of this. And people tend to attribute what they're feeling to something that happens immediately prior. So for example, maybe somebody got a stomach virus and then they eat Chinese food, for example, or sushi. They're more likely to attribute that vomiting to like bad sushi. And they may even develop an association where they feel nauseous anytime they think of sushi. But it was really due to the virus and sushi was just the last thing that they eat. So even as I discuss here what's happening to me when I'm in ketosis, I have to be reasonable from a scientific perspective and say, hey, it could be other things other than just being in ketosis, which is why replication is important. It's why I've done this experiment multiple times and the same thing happens to me. Okay. So this is not a criticism of ketosis. It may work wonderfully for many people. It's a demonstration of how our complex human systems really do require nuanced understanding and medical care requires time and evaluation. My point being is that we're in this stage in healthcare where researchers, especially if they're financially committed to their science, how easy it is to make claims that are not supported by science. I mean, I see Dr. Christopher Palmer's doing this all the time. You know, it is the toxic attention that comes with scientific breakthroughs or perceived scientific breakthroughs. Like we really do have to be mindful and protect ourselves against that through empirical analysis, critical thinking, and scientific debate. That's why anything that shuts down scientific debate is unscientific. Anything that says trust the science or I am the science is really, really dangerous. Okay. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (07:16.908) So I'm telling you that my emotional state or my state of being is negatively impacted by being in ketosis and the type of foods that I'm currently eating. Now let's imagine somebody who is trying to lose weight, going through starvation diet, is a drug user, isn't healthy, goes through extended periods of not eating well. What are they doing to their metabolic system? What are they doing to their body? how easily it is to be misrepresented as a psychiatric illness, illnesses that are being told to people that this is something you have to manage for the rest of your life. This is why I'm so critical of psychiatry. It is unscientific. Not to mention, we all have a mind, we all have a soul, we all have a body, all of them are important, and they interact with each other, and none should be reduced to simplistic explanations. This all mental illnesses and metabolic disorder is this redundancy again. It's it's like another version of a chemical imbalance. Simply speaking, listen, there are people who are fat and happy. There are people who are metabolically ill and doing well emotionally, just like there are people who are, you know, very healthy, metabolically well, spend a lot of their time focusing on health and go through episodic challenges and struggles or depressive episodes. They're pain. They're in pain. They're empty. They're struggling with meaning in life. So to reduce everything down to like metabolic health is a real problem. So this leads us to a larger issue. How do we make informed healthcare decisions when the system itself is built on misinformation and corporate protocols rather than individualized care? See informed consent, it can't be a hollow phrase in modern medicine and it's exactly what it is. It's a legal right for you. It's also an ethical obligation by all healthcare providers. So we have to be very careful about what they say and how they communicate. And you have to be willing to fight back to defend yourself and your family, but you fight back with logic and reason because I'm just about, don't mislead people, don't lie, right? Be honest with what you do and you don't know because for consent to be truly informed, you need accurate, complete information about risks and benefit. But what if your doctor doesn't have Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (09:39.266) that information. And what if the regulatory agencies tasked with ensuring drug safety are failing to perform this basic function? Okay, if you haven't been paying attention to some recent news, here's something that's important. There was a recent case, which highlights this disturbing reality. Marianne DeMasi, an investigative journalist recently wrote about this, so I'll give her credit. The lawsuit was against the FDA. This is really important. and it was dismissed on March 31st, 2025. And the case focused on the FDA's failure to update antidepressant warning labels regarding post SSRI sexual dysfunction, a condition that can persist indefinitely after stopping medication. And this is my point for a lot of people who follow my work. Listen, if you want to take the risk of an SSRI because you're in such emotional distress, that anything that can impact your brain chemicals, temporarily, you're willing to because you just want to escape what you're feeling. Despite what the problems or risks associated with that might be, well, we live in a free society, folks, you have that right. But my problem is 99 % or more of people are not informed of that risk because doctors don't follow this. The doctors aren't even aware. And when most of these drugs are prescribed in primary care settings, we know that these doctors aren't staying informed. It's not their specialty, it's not their area. They're writing out prescripts based on protocols, okay? So it's important that you, the consumer, have this information. Although I would not be willing to play Russian roulette with my life or my sexuality, or any other potentially fatal or persistent chronic health condition from swallowing that pill for the promise of something that I don't believe outperforms just a placebo, someone else might. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (11:49.294) So in 2018, researchers filed what was called a citizen petition requesting this update that the FDA is legally required to respond within 180 days. And six years later, they still hadn't acted, prompting Public Citizen, which is a nonprofit group to sue on behalf of Dr. Antoni Zoka. S-O-K-A. And here's where it gets troubling. The court ended up dismissing the case on a technicality, ruling that Dr. Soka lacked standing because he couldn't demonstrate a direct personal injury from the FDA's inaction, which appears to be, from what I understand, a ruling that deviates from what has occurred in the past. So, the message, I think, is clear, this precedent. When the FDA fails to follow its own legal requirements, there's no accountability. So if this warning is not available to doctors, if it's not listed for patients, how can you be informed about the risks if they don't know? And so how can patients consent to treatments when this information is being suppressed? And it's not like this is skeptical science, right? Anyone who has either prescribed SSRIs or worked in the mental health field or has taken them understands that sexual dysfunction is a potential consequence. In fact, even urologists will prescribe an SSRI for men who have premature ejaculation. The problem is it affects people differently. And some people have complete numbing of the genitals and are unable to orgasm. And that is very, very distressing. And if it's potentially permanent, well, you know, that leads people to want to die by suicide. I mean, the hopelessness associated with that. So you can see that when we have the science, we want it clearly communicated to the general public. The thing is, is there are going to be forces. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (14:11.522) that financially benefit from prescribing this drug, that are gonna do everything possible to try to convince you that this drug is safe, to undermine the credibility of sound science and those in the informed consent and medical freedom movement. Because if they don't do that, it is the loss of millions and billions of dollars and loss of jobs. And this is where we come face to face with corporate medicine versus the individual rights and freedom of all of us. They intersect with each other. The healthier you are, the worse it affects their professions and their bottom line. All so what comes out recently? A statement from several psychiatric organizations which perfectly illustrates how institutional gaslighting works in medicine. This is from the American Psychiatric Association amongst others. On March 21, 2025, to joint statement, six major psychiatric organizations released a statement in response to executive order 14212, which establishes a commission to assess the threat posed by various psychiatric medications. Okay, what is the problem? with more science. Anybody? Look, I'm a firm believer in the scientific method. We have to empirically evaluate these drugs with gold standard science over the long term in comparison to other safe interventions, not just a placebo. Because there is no doubt that psychiatric drugs have significant negative health reactions, adverse reactions. They can range from PSSD to akathisia to increased suicidal ideation to homicidal ideation to psychosis to metabolic illness. So to take those drugs and you're trying to do a risk benefit analysis, right? You have to face those risks, which are widely known. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (16:34.998) So where is the threat American Psychiatric Association? Where is the threat the psychiatric establishment? Why are you afraid of science? Why are you afraid of rigorous research? Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (16:50.732) Well, you're afraid of the truth. You're afraid of patients being informed because if they are informed, they are going to retaliate with lawsuits for the years and years of mismanagement and lack of informed consent. And listen, I do my best, I think, to be reasonable about what doctors are going through, but can't let them off the hook, because you have the ethical responsibility to be able to inform your patients. And I don't care if you work for a large hospital network and they say you must follow protocol. That's not what you signed up for. You signed up to be an independent clinician and you took an oath and you have an ethical code, which supersedes law, by the way. Ethical code supersedes law. So listen, I can sit here and say like scientifically right now I have experience in kind of a hypomanic state. Can I definitively say it's a keto diet? Nope, I can't. Not scientifically, but I'm an N of one. and I'm reporting those symptoms. And it happened at the same time. And I've done it before. Hey, but possibly I did the ketogenic diet in spring at other times, and maybe it's the time of the year. Maybe it's something about the spring equinox. Maybe it's light. Maybe it's my use of electronics. There could be various other variables that you have to control for. That's why you are open and honest and allow people to make informed decisions. And you approach all your cases as a clinical scientist. Each person is an individual. Okay. So this is interesting to read what the psychiatric medical establishment has put out to the general public. And I'm going to read it for all of you now. And I'll tell you ahead of time. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (18:56.322) that they are deliberately lying. And they are, this is an ethical violation and it's in writing. Okay. Here's the statement. The safety and efficacy of traditional antidepressants, anti-saccharides and mood stabilizers and stimulant medications have been established through decades of rigorous research, randomized clinical trials, peer reviewed studies, meta-analysis, national registry studies of thousands of people, post-marketing. pharmacovigilance monitoring and FDA oversight lie. Do I need to read more? That is an absolute lie. These drugs have not undergone rigorous research. In fact, I think the best way to describe it, it's the minimum level of research to get a drug to market. And then when they're out there, they are prescribed off label, they are prescribed in combination with each other. there is no monitoring. Why would there be monitoring for safety? Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (20:00.174) If you're a drug company, why would you monitor for safety if you're not going to be held accountable? Why would you monitor for safety if the incentive is not there? In fact, you are incentivized to minimize the effects of any danger to your product, to minimize it. And that's exactly what the playbook is. I'll continue on this. February 14, 2025, executive order 14212, establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission casts doubt on this research by tasking the commission with assessing the prevalence of and threat posed by prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antipsychotics, mood stabilized stimulates, and waste loss drugs. so right away, studying it casts doubt on this research. Do you know that there's over 40 international drug regulatory warnings against suicide and violence for these drugs? There should. There should absolutely cast doubt about these drugs. They go on. These drugs provide relief for many young people enabling them to participate fully in treatment, school, social activities, and family life. All key aspects of healthy development. Okay, lie. go on a drug and now you can participate in social activities, family life, school, and without it you couldn't? And you wouldn't be able to develop healthy enough? We're not that fucking stupid, are we? I mean, all of you listening to this, do you see the manipulation? Well, go on. Efforts to discourage, stigmatize, there's the word, or curtail the use of evidence-based treatments for mental illness will have serious deleterious consequences. particularly for those individuals with serious mental illness, their loved ones and the communities in which they live. No, you don't have to cite that. You can just state that. Here we are decades into this experiment with your drugs, where every available statistics demonstrates rising rates of mental illness. And in the United States where we prescribe the most drugs, we have the worst outcomes and we fail in any way to be able to use other. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (22:20.648) non-pharmacological interventions that are used in other countries that show better outcomes. Okay, another lie. Okay, I'll go on. Inaccurate information about the safety and efficacy of FDA approved psychotropic medications has been amplified by misleading statements that antidepressants are addictive and pose hazards comparable to schedule one narcotics. Like any medical treatment, psychotropic medications require monitoring. When used appropriately, these medications can stabilize serious mental illness, reduce suffering, shorten periods of disability, and save lives. Physicians work closely with patients and families to assess all risks and benefits of psychopharmacology and monitor for potential side effects, ensuring each patient receives individualized care. really? Folks, is that your experience out there? Is that the care you receive? Are you carefully monitored? Are you told about dependence? How about all those trying to get off an antidepressant SSRI? Was that easy? Yes, they use the wrong word addictive. Bobby Kennedy used the wrong word addictive. What he meant is dependence, physiological dependence. And for all those who've tried to get off an antidepressant, when you go through withdrawal, what happens? Are you informed that that's withdrawal? Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (23:52.106) Or are you gaslit and told your mental illness has returned and you need to remain on the drug? Yeah, show me some long term SSRI studies. Show them to me. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (24:06.924) I'm looking, American Psychiatric Association. You're putting up people on these drugs for years. You're combining them with other drugs. Where's the science? I'll go on. Statistics on youth suicide further underscore the dangers associated with false information about treatments. Following the FDA 2004 boxed warning, highlighting the risk for suicidal behavior in younger depressed patients taking serotonin reuptake inhibitors, suicide rates increased as much as 60 % in untreated youth and major depression. Lie. Absolute lie. So where's the accountability? See, this is where we stand in Western cultures. You can fucking say anything anymore because there's no accountability. It doesn't even matter. Doesn't matter the quality of the research. Doesn't even matter the accuracy of the statements. We see this in news. You can say anything, right? It's up to you to have the bullshit detector. You as individuals, parents, family members, community members, individual clinicians, you have to have the bullshit detector. Does anybody out there reasonably believe a drug proven to more than double the risk of suicide and up to six times that in younger people, untreated depression without the drug, people are more likely to commit suicide? Come on. You're smarter than that. We're all smarter than that. I'll go on further postmortem tech postmortem tech toxicology studies suggest that many suicide victims with known mental health conditions do not have the detectable levels of psychotropic medications in their system further pointing to the hazard of untreatment as a modifiable risk factor. Really? Do you know the most likely mode of a suicide attempt? Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (26:15.574) It's an overdose. It's an overdose on the drugs that are prescribed. Again, you can say anything, right? And then if somebody commits suicide and they weren't on the drug, you're stating that they would not have if they were on the drug. Not true. Okay? And this is why you don't get informed consent. And then here's a statement. It's false. It's a lie. And it's why they can't be trusted. Psychiatric medications are safe, effective, and can be lifesaving if they're taken properly as directed under the care of an appropriately licensed healthcare professional. Hey, where did we hear safe and effective and lifesaving before folks? Didn't we fall for this scam? Did not we fall for this scam already? These medications can significantly improve the quality of life for children struggling with mental health conditions, including those at imminent risk of suicide by helping alleviate symptoms of depression, mania, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette's disorder, ADHD, psychotic illness. These are all lies and these are lies that those in the medical establishment have been brainwashed to believe and they do not critically analyze or even think about this. And this is why they urge the federal government and their colleagues within the scientific and practitioner communities not to disregard the critical role played by the appropriate use of evidence-based psychotropic medications and the treatment of individuals with psychiatric conditions that carry an inherent risk for suicide. So here you see folks, they are threatened. If I was heading a major organization in the medical and psychiatric establishment, my statements would be clear. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (27:55.5) We care only about the health and wellbeing of the patients we serve. We further support rigorous scientific analysis into the safety of these drugs. We want to be partners in this process in order to be able to communicate to the general public that psychiatric treatments are safe and effective and will advance. with new data and as we learn more about the health and wellbeing of the public. know, something very similar to that, right? Like why are you afraid of scientific advancement? Right? Isn't that right away a red flag? Don't you all get that feeling in your, in your stomach, you know, you know, when you're, you know, in the presence of bullshit and salespeople, you know, who don't really give a shit about you. And all they want to do is like maintain their own standing in society or sell their product. You know, that's the defensive reaction of criminals who have a lot to hide. don't for a second, don't not for a second do I believe that they believe that nor do most practitioners who practice believe the absolute nature of those statements. Okay. So let's break down the gas lighting. First, they conflate established through research, proven safe, despite mounting evidence of serious risks not captured in industry funded trials. They create a false dichotomy. Either these medications are perfectly safe or you're against helping people with mental illness. Right? That's how they make it. So you have to go to one side and other just like what they do to us in politics, how they try to divide us. And perhaps most egregiously is they cite a supposed increase in use suicide following the FDA's 2004 black box warning while failing to mention that the claim has been thoroughly debunked. The study they're referencing didn't actually measure SSRI prescriptions or demonstrate causation. They're deploying exactly the fear tactics I described in my recent article, using the specter of suicide to frighten people away from questioning medication safety. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (30:15.49) while ignoring the black box warning that exists precisely because these medications increase suicidal ideation in young people. And so here's what I'm afraid of because I have lost faith in primary care. I don't know who chooses to go into primary care centers for health care anymore. But I mean, it's transformed into what I call a pharmaceutical compliance officer. I wrote about this, I've spoken about this before, you know, conversation I had with a pediatrician who admitted he was mandated to administer depression screenings to every adolescent. And if they scored above a certain threshold, he had to offer an SSRI, regardless of context. You know, when I pointed out that these drugs more than double the risk of suicide events in teenagers, traditionally, teenage depression wasn't even really considered a serious medical concern. In fact, there was just the ups and downs and the turbulence that goes along with, with adolescents and, you know, historically, Youth suicide was extremely rare. You know who needs you know facts when you got a narrative. So I point out that these drugs more than double the risk and his response to me was absolutely chilling. Said if something happens to this teen and I didn't follow protocol. I could be held liable. So basically what this means is this team did. Die by suicide. Or some other life threatening condition and wasn't offered an SSRI. Then he's liable. But if he does provide the SSRI, the one that doubles the risk, and I think it's six times four to six times increase, and that teen doesn't die by suicide. Well, then you're not liable. You see the ethical and moral implications of this. Who is your master? Dr. Pediatrician. Who is your overlord? Who are you worshipping? I mean, that's those are the questions you have to ask yourself like Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (32:28.738) You able just to lay your pillow down, lay your head on the pillow at night and just sleep easily knowing this? The corporate takeover of medicine, it didn't happen overnight. You know, this comes from the Affordable Care Act, which I think delivered the knockout blow to all independent practice. They buy up all the small practices under regulatory requirements and compliance costs that made these independents financially, like impossible to just, you know, work independently, for the most part, under that current insurance model. Before the ACA, over half of physicians or more own their practices, and then you kind of go back decades, and it's a lot more today, like it's plummeted, we're like a quarter, if that most were forced to sell out to corporate health care systems where their compensation and job security depends on following these protocols. They're established by these, you know, bean counters, these administrators. So your family doctor isn't making independent medical decisions. They're following scripts. They're in protocols out of fear of liability, even when those protocols might harm the patient. So let me tell a story that happened to me this previous week. I got permission from my client to do so. And this is how limited our medical doctors have become because I mean, what are going to really do in a 10 minute session? So it was about 10 minutes in this meeting. So I you to picture this. working with a client. I'll change the details a little bit for quite some time because it was an initial traumatic event that had serious consequences, right? It was a sexual trauma. had serious consequences. When I first met this person, they were seriously underweight along with a lot of other medical conditions, a very, very serious, eating disorder. And so it takes some time to be able to get that person to restore weight, as well as stop other behaviors like drug abuse or substance abuse and self injury, and to work on PTSD symptoms. Now, anyone who has worked in this field understands that people are complex and when they present to you, it's not these neat categories that are simply diagnosed and treated like, I don't know, like strep throat, okay? Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (34:49.384) these descriptive labels in the DSM, OCD, anorexia, major depressive disorder, PTSD, they're not these individual based, diagnoses. It's part of a large complex conceptualization. So for example, this person is prone to entering into OCD episodes. They often come at times where there's transition and there's increased stress. And so OCD can be exacerbated as a control mechanism, a way of dealing with uncertainty and can enter into problematic compulsive behaviors. I'm well aware of this and there's a treatment that's provided. So again, everything comes in the context, a context that a primary care physician would not know unless they chose to collaborate with the treating psychologist like myself, which in this case they didn't. 10 minute. meeting. This primary care doctor offered my client either Zoloft or Lexapro for their quote unquote OCD. Now this patient has a history of being very suicidal. The doctor provided no informed consent about the serious risks nor the context in which the person was experiencing OCD. Asked if she was in mental health treatment. She explained yes. She asked questions about who was providing her the treatment and whether they recommended an SSRI or not. I think my client's reaction was, well, he's not a fan. Well, I mean, that's not the best response, but knowing who I am, that's accurate. And it's not about being a fan or not being a fan. It's about informed consent and it's about the harms. Well, this doctor said you don't have to tell him. Yeah, let me repeat that again. told my client who I have a strong relationship with and been working with this person for quite some time to leave out critical health information, to not tell me that they would take an SSRI, one that would absolutely interfere with their presentation. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (37:08.142) Now obviously I want to do something about that because it's an ethical violation, but I would require my client's permission to do that. But I do at least have permission today to tell this story because this story is unique. Where is the hubris? Where a doctor can say not only not collaborate with another treating professional, which they don't really have time to anyway, like it's almost impossible to get in touch with anyone anymore because they're in fast food medicine and every 10 minutes they have to go somewhere else and be able to write another prescription for someone else. But, you know, here we are. And that's where we are. This is American healthcare right now. And so clear ethical violation, client not provided informed consent, actually provided a harmful intervention without even understanding context. So how do we protect ourselves in this system? Okay. So here's some practical steps. you have to recognize the sales pitch. When a doctor immediately reaches for the prescription pad, be alert. If you express hesitation and they switch to fear attack, it's like, well, untreated OCD or untreated depression can lead to blank, blank, blank. Recognize this as emotional manipulation, not medical counseling, not informed consent. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (38:36.812) We need to demand absolute risk numbers, not relative risk. So for example, if a medication or intervention is described as reducing risk by 50%, ask 50 % of what? What's the absolute risk reduction? See these often impressive sounding relative risk reductions translate to very tiny absolute benefits. Okay, great example, this is the flu shot. I would never get the flu shot, are you kidding me? There are risks to getting the flu shot. One of the one of the risks, I mean, we've seen this here at my medical practice, Guillain-Barre syndrome, for example. Why would why would a healthy person Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (39:27.41) Even if the risks are quite small, right? So I could admit to the risks, I think, for adverse reactions to a flu shot for a healthy person might be quite small. But I think they're larger for people who are unhealthy, people who have autoimmune conditions and a number of complex healthcare issues, comorbid conditions. And what if you're pregnant? Are you willing to take a risk for an absolute risk reduction in obtaining the illness or severity from the illness being almost undetectable in most years? Right? I'm just, I'm a believer in trying to strengthen my own immune system, not trying to disrupt my natural system that I think has been beautifully designed throughout the course of mankind. and, trying to do everything I can to stay healthy. So there's all these, manipulation through numbers. And the other thing is really important is that we have to look beyond industry sources. So you can like look up medications on site, like, rx isk.org that document patients experiences, you know, check the FD adverse, the FDA adverse event reporting system. Look for researchers out there without industry funding. When it comes to like psychiatric drugs, you you have to understand its clinical relevance versus statistical relevance. That's really, really important. If there's no real genuine shift or change in taking a drug compared to a placebo, why would you want to take such a risk given all the adverse side effects? Ask about long-term findings, trust your experiences. If medication, a drug that you're taking makes you feel worse, don't accept it gets worse before it gets better. Bullshit without questioning. And if you, if you're in withdrawal, cause you're, you're being tapered off a drug and no, that's not your mental illness. Your experience matters. think finding independent voices and independent practitioners. mean, there's tons of them out there. You step outside the corporate medicine. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (41:53.512) And there's functional medicine and chiropractors and nurses. There's independent physicians, integrative health providers. They're not bound by corporate protocols and they're more likely to be adherent to their ethics. And I think you have to trust ourselves. I got an interesting response today on Twitter, which I think speaks to the fear-based consciousness that exists in our culture, that we've outsourced our health to medical experts. And it's infiltrated all of us. So I put out this tweet today. And today is the 5th of April. It's a Saturday when I'm recording it. And it's simply, I'll read it out to you. I've been in ketosis for seven straight days. Now I want to preface this by saying I was healthy and not metabolically sick prior to the shift. I believe in metabolic flexibility. However, this seven day period mimics other times I have shifted to keto. I have become hypomanic, irritable, anxious. It's difficult to sit still. It's not a desirable state for me. My sleep quality is worse. Now I'm well trained to not let this interfere with my personal or professional life. The point of me saying this is simple. We have to be careful of making claims about anyone diet or intervention that is universally helpful in mental health or worse, like depression is a metabolic illness, for example. I believe our lifestyle and nutrition can be a major factor in emotional wellbeing as evidenced by my current state. I change what I put in my body. It affects me physiologically. So there are plenty of people who fall into the depths of despair or go through episodic struggles who are physically healthy. There are very happy people who have never suffered from mental illness, who are obese and metabolically ill. We have a mind, a soul, and a body. All are important. I'm going to continue in ketosis to monitor Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (44:03.414) if this if this hypomanic state shifts, but my history suggests I'll feel much better when I add certain carbohydrates and follow Paul Saladino's animal-based diet. That's when I feel the best. But this is just me in N of one. We all should accept that the poison passed off as food in the U.S., dyes, chemicals, processed junk, needs to be eliminated to achieve a more optimal state of health. But long-term ketosis, not so sure. So I think that's very reasonable, right? Well, not so much. You don't get that response. There are people who fervently, religiously, in almost like a cult-like fashion become attached to something that worked for them. And that's, I mean, that is absolutely great. Like if ketosis, which I support for the right person in the right time, changed your life, I am happy for you. It needs to be included in the scientific literature. And we should evaluate it, especially in comparison to other types of diets without the poisons, of course, and other lifestyle interventions. But to absolutely say like, this is the way for everybody doesn't pass my bullshit test doesn't make sense. Okay, so then I get a gentleman. I need to find it here. He comes from the account, I think it's the sickest generation. Yeah. So it's the sickest generation and it's at med induced sick. And I appreciate him both following me and I appreciate his comment. It's just that there's something that we may disagree with here. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (45:59.106) He says, he puts my statement in quotes, we have to be careful making claims about any one diet or intervention that is universally helpful in mental health. He says exactly, stop letting the insulin speak for you after only seven days, it isn't helping. I've seen people cure epilepsy and anxiety in two weeks. So he's assuming that it's insulin and he doesn't even know about my previous diet, okay? And I wrote to him that he's, missing a very key point that I wasn't unhealthy prior to going on this. Now, if I was, if I was insulin resistant or, you know, spikes in blood, blood sugar because of a high sugar diet, I mean, that that statement may be appropriate, but I eat a high protein, low carb diet. Normally, I often intermittently fast, sometimes for 24 hours or more. I just don't go into ketosis for seven straight seven. they straighter more because I don't necessarily I don't feel well. So possibly, I do go in ketosis for like maybe hours at a time. I think this is being metabolically flexible. So this is not coming from someone who's letting the insulin control me or requires us. I am not healthier or feeling better, right? So I do not feel better being in ketosis, but that's just me. Okay. And I said, I've done this before. I'm replicating other experiments I've conducted on myself. So you may be missing the greater point. And this is what he says. And this is my greater point here. Roger, did you just get a CAT scan to prove you are healthy? Because if you didn't, you have no idea. You're not starving some small cancer cells in your body. Let's see how you feel about this in another week. And so my response is, are we this disconnected from our bodies and ourselves? that we can no longer even determine if we are healthy. That we always have to turn to medical experts in technology. You don't see the problem. So most of the time I'm happy. I exercise routinely. I think I'm pretty strong for a 48 year old man. If I had to, I wouldn't want to, but if I had to, you made me run a half mile or I mean a half marathon today, I could do it. I sleep well, I meditate. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (48:22.478) I feel connected to God and nature, vigilant about the food I put in my body. Why would I have to go get a scan to make sure I'm healthy? Isn't that part of the scam? You know, like we always have to be so vigilant about something that can be wrong about us, and then we become anxious about it, and now we have anxiety as a disorder too? I don't think people really understand the larger picture here. Fear-based consciousness does affect you in your body. I mean, if I'm going to be worried and anxious and obsessive about my health, it's going to affect my body. I'm not going to feel well. It's just not the type of life that I want to live. Something's going to take me out, right? But in the meantime, I'm going to live in the moment to the best of my ability, healthy, trying to be as strong as I can, passionate, connected to the things that I believe in. And I understand that my attention is a commodity and I'm to be extremely mindful about what hijacks my attention. So no, I'm not going to be going to doctors to check me out all the time for that some confirmation that I'm doing well. First of all, I even believe in their tests. If I don't even believe in their tests or think that there's a greater opportunity that I'll face medical harm, why would I go that route? Just another perspective. You can choose the way you want to want to live, and that's freedom. And that's what today is about. It's about freedom. It's a fight for true informed consent. It's not about rejecting science. It's about demanding better science, more transparent science, and a system that treats patients as individuals rather than compliance metrics. And we deserve regulatory agencies that actually protect public health rather than corporate interest. I'm hoping that's what Bobby Kennedy does. We deserve doctors who can think critically beyond algorithms. We deserve honest information about benefits and risks of medical interventions. Roger K. McFillin, Psy.D, ABPP (50:36.504) how the pharmaceutical industry has systematically captured the very regulatory agencies meant to oversee us. And then when we cite that flawed science, we tell people it's absolute. Follow the science, trust it, it's safe. So until then, here's what's healthy in my opinion. Question everything. Doing your research. is your responsibility. Trust your experiences. Challenge authority and protect your mind because it is so easy to institute mass influence from a range of very established brainwashing techniques. You see it, our doctors, and you see the doctors repeating it. Thanks for listening.