Part 8: Pharmaceuticals Are Making You Sick
Biology & Survival Series - The Most Medicated Country on Earth Keeps Getting Sicker
In Part 7, we looked at what happens when you replace real food with industrial products: metabolic collapse, gut destruction, chronic disease across every system in the body. The processed generation is being poisoned by what it eats.
This part is about what happens next. Because when the processed diet, the sedentary lifestyle, and the chemical environment inevitably produce symptoms, the system doesn’t fix the cause. It sells you a pill.
Then another pill. Then five pills. Then pills for the side effects of the pills.
Nearly 5 billion retail prescriptions were filled in the United States in 2025. That’s roughly 15 prescriptions per person per year, including infants and children. The U.S. pharmaceutical market is projected to generate $662 billion in revenue in 2025, making it the most lucrative drug market on the planet. The pharmaceutical industry spends more on lobbying than any other industry in America, and it’s not close. In 2024 alone, Big Pharma and health product companies spent $293.7 million buying influence in Washington. Over two decades (1999-2018), they poured $4.7 billion into lobbying at just the federal level.
On top of that, the top ten pharmaceutical companies spent a combined $13.8 billion on advertising and promotion in 2023. The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries on Earth where it is legal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise prescription drugs directly to consumers on television.
This is not a healthcare system. It’s a machine that turns healthy people into patients and patients into recurring revenue.
The Antidepressant Nation
Let’s start with the class of drugs most emblematic of the medicated society: antidepressants.
In Part 7, we documented how the more processed food you eat, the more depressed you get. But don’t worry - Big Pharma has a pill for you so you can keep eating Doritos and not feel suicidal.
As of 2023, 11.4% of American adults were taking prescription medication for depression, up from 9.8% in 2019, a statistically significant increase in just four years. That’s roughly 30 million adults. Among women, the number is 15.3%. Among women over 60, it climbs to nearly 1 in 4.
One in four.
Among adolescents and young adults (ages 12-25), the antidepressant dispensing rate increased 66.3% from 2016 to 2022. After the pandemic hit in March 2020, the rate accelerated further, rising 63.5% faster than the already-increasing pre-pandemic trend. Among female adolescents specifically, the rate increased 129.6% faster during the pandemic period. Not 129.6% total. 129.6% faster than the previous rate of increase.
And these drugs, once started, tend not to stop. CDC data shows that one in four people who take antidepressants have been on them for 10 years or longer.
Do They Actually Work?
Here’s the part the $13.8 billion in advertising and promotion doesn’t mention.
In 2008, Irving Kirsch and colleagues at the University of Hull published a meta-analysis in PLOS Medicine using the complete dataset of clinical trials submitted to the FDA for four major SSRI antidepressants (including both published and unpublished data). The finding: “The overall effect of new generation antidepressant medications is below recommended criteria for clinical significance.”
In plain language: when you include the trials the drug companies chose not to publish (because the results were unfavorable), the benefit of SSRIs over placebo is so small it ‘s insignificant. The drug-placebo difference was roughly 1.8 points on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. NICE’s threshold for clinical significance is 3 points.
The drugs reached clinical significance only among the most severely depressed patients, and that wasn’t because the drug worked better for them. It was because placebo worked less well in the severely depressed group.
Meanwhile, a 2022 network meta-analysis in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that exercise showed that exercise was just as good as antidepressants for non-severe depression. A 2024 BMJ meta-analysis reached the same conclusion. Exercise decreased depressive symptoms with large effect sizes (standardized mean difference of -0.946), comparable to or exceeding pharmaceutical interventions.
So we have 30 million Americans on drugs that barely beat placebo in clinical trials, while an intervention that costs nothing, has no side effects, and improves virtually every other health metric (exercise) performs equally well. Or their doctor could just tell them to stop eating junk food, but then they wouldn’t get the Big Pharma kickbacks.
What SSRIs Do to the Next Generation
The most alarming research on antidepressants isn’t about the people taking them. It’s about their children.
Researchers at Columbia University have spent nearly two decades studying the effects of SSRI exposure during pregnancy. Their work began with a discovery that confused everyone: when they genetically deleted the serotonin reuptake protein in mice (doing genetically what Prozac does pharmacologically), the mice didn’t behave like they were on antidepressants. They behaved like they were on “anti-Prozac”: more depressed, more anxious, more stress-sensitive.
The key turned out to be timing. A brief exposure to Prozac during the mouse equivalent of the third trimester was enough to produce anxious, depressed behavior later in the mouse’s life. When the researchers studied human children, the pattern matched: rates of depression in early adolescence were significantly higher among children whose mothers took SSRIs during pregnancy compared to those who did not.
“These kids look pretty normal throughout early childhood,” Columbia’s Jay Gingrich explained, “and then when they hit adolescence, their rates of depression really started to go up, which is exactly what we see in our mouse studies.”
In their most recent work, published in Nature Communications in 2025, Gingrich and colleague Mark Ansorge used MRI imaging to show that children exposed to SSRIs in utero had measurably altered fear circuits in the brain, showing “huge increases” in fear circuit activity compared to unexposed children. The same pattern appeared in the mouse models. Children of mothers with depression who did not take SSRIs did not show these changes, suggesting the effect was specific to the drug, not the underlying condition.
Remember that a fearful population is far easier to control. They’ll agree to all kind of tyranny to keep them safe. Combine pre-natal SSRI brain damage with a 24 hour doom news cycle and exposure to social media from a young age, and you can imagine the result. No wonder so many people went along with COVID-era restrictions.
Separate research found that mothers who took antidepressants during pregnancy had a 37% increased risk of speech and language disorders in their children.
Think about the loop this creates. A woman takes SSRIs for depression. The SSRIs alter her child’s brain development in utero. The child enters adolescence with elevated risk of depression. The child is prescribed SSRIs. If that child becomes a mother and takes SSRIs during pregnancy, the cycle continues.
The pharmaceutical industry doesn’t just create customers. It creates generational customers.
The Statin Trap: Solving a Fake Problem, Creating Real Ones
Statins are the most prescribed drug class in the United States. Over 40 million Americans take them. After the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines expanded eligibility criteria, the number of statin users surged to an estimated 92 million by 2018-2019, with 818 million annual prescriptions written.
Statins work by inhibiting HMG-CoA reductase, the enzyme that catalyzes the rate-limiting step in the mevalonate pathway, which produces cholesterol. The problem: the mevalonate pathway doesn’t just produce cholesterol. It also produces Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), essential for mitochondrial energy production, and 7-dehydrocholesterol, the precursor to vitamin D synthesis. When statins block HMG-CoA reductase, they reduce CoQ10 synthesis and potentially interfere with vitamin D production.
The consequences are predictable. 15% to 20% of statin patients report muscle-related symptoms (some studies report 20-29%). A meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Heart Association confirmed that CoQ10 supplementation significantly reduced statin-associated muscle pain, supporting the depletion mechanism. Vitamin D is essential for bone health, immune function, mood regulation, and cancer prevention.
A 2024 meta-analysis in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology confirmed that statin therapy increases the risk of new-onset diabetes by 9% to 13%. Stop and think about it for a second: the most prescribed drug in America, given to prevent cardiovascular disease, causes diabetes, one of the primary risk factors for cardiovascular disease. It blows the mind.
Then there’s cholesterol itself. Multiple studies document an association between low circulating cholesterol and higher cancer incidence and mortality. A 2024 study in Scientific Reports found a U-shaped relationship: low LDL levels corresponded to increased risk of all-cause death in cancer patients. Your brain is approximately 25% cholesterol by dry weight. Aggressively suppressing it may reduce one risk while increasing others.
Follow the loop: bad dietary guidelines (1977) → metabolic disease → “high cholesterol” → statin prescriptions (92 million users) → side effects (muscle pain, diabetes, CoQ10 depletion, vitamin D disruption) → more prescriptions. The Pharma-Food industrial complex runs one hell of a business model.
Bad dietary guidelines create sick people.
Sick people create pharmaceutical customers.
Pharmaceutical side effects create more pharmaceutical customers.
The Acid Trap
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), the acid reflux drugs like Prilosec, Nexium, and Prevacid, are among the most commonly used medications in the country. 10% of Americans use them. They were designed for short-term treatment of ulcers and severe acid reflux. What happened instead is that millions of people were put on them and never taken off.
The long-term consequences are now well documented.
A 2024 meta-analysis found that PPI use is associated with a 26% elevated risk of chronic kidney disease (HR: 1.26). An earlier meta-analysis placed the risk even higher: a 32% increase in CKD and an 88% increase in end-stage renal disease.
PPIs work by suppressing stomach acid. The problem is that stomach acid isn’t a design flaw. You need it. Specifically, you need it to digest food and absorb nutrients. By suppressing acid production, PPIs interfere with the absorption of magnesium, calcium, vitamin B12, and folate. Clinical studies show that vitamin B12 deficiency occurs in up to 20% of long-term PPI users. In some cases, PPI-induced magnesium deficiency is so severe that even supplementation can’t correct it until the drug is stopped.
The pattern is the same as statins. Suppress one symptom. Create three new deficiencies. Treat the deficiencies with more interventions. Never address why the person had acid reflux in the first place (which, in many cases, traces back to diet, stress, and the ultra-processed food supply we covered in Part 7).
Antibiotics: Carpet-Bombing the Ecosystem Inside You
Your gut microbiome contains trillions of bacteria that regulate digestion, immune function, mental health, and metabolic processes. It is, in a very real sense, an organ. Antibiotics are the equivalent of carpet-bombing that organ and hoping the right things grow back.
The CDC estimates that at least 28% of antibiotic prescriptions in U.S. doctor’s offices and emergency departments are unnecessary. In hospitals, 30% are unnecessary or suboptimal. That translates to roughly 47 million excess prescriptions every year: antibiotics handed out for viral infections like colds and sinus infections that don’t respond to antibiotics at all.
The damage from each of those unnecessary prescriptions is real and increasingly well quantified.
A landmark study published in Nature Medicine in March 2026 analyzed stool samples from nearly 15,000 adults in Sweden, cross-referenced with the country’s prescribed drug registry. The findings were stark.
People who had not taken any antibiotics in the past eight years had about 350 unique bacterial species in their gut. Those who had taken antibiotics had fewer. The most disruptive antibiotic, clindamycin (commonly prescribed for skin and dental infections), was linked to an average of 47 fewer detected species per course and changes in abundance in nearly 300 of the 1,340 species analyzed.
The study found that bacterial diversity recovered fastest in the first two years after antibiotic use, but the rate of recovery tapered off after that. The study’s senior author, molecular epidemiologist Tove Fall of Uppsala University, put it plainly: “It seems like you don’t recover completely.”
Some of the antibiotics didn’t just kill bacteria. They were linked to increases in bacteria associated with poor cardiometabolic health. Lower gut microbial diversity has been linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and inflammatory bowel disease.
This matters because Americans aren’t getting one course of antibiotics in their lifetime. They’re getting many, starting in childhood. And each course leaves a permanent mark on an ecosystem that never fully rebuilds.
The Water Supply: Fluoride and the IQ Question
For decades, questioning water fluoridation was treated as a marker of conspiracy thinking, roughly equivalent to believing in Bigfoot. Then the science changed. Or rather, the science accumulated to the point where even federal institutions couldn’t ignore it.
In 2014, Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan published a landmark review in The Lancet Neurology identifying fluoride as one of six newly recognized developmental neurotoxicants, alongside manganese, chlorpyrifos, DDT, tetrachloroethylene, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. That’s a Lancet journal, not a fringe blog. Two Harvard and Mount Sinai researchers. Classifying the chemical added to the majority of America’s drinking water as a developmental neurotoxin.
In 2019, Green et al. published a prospective study in JAMA Pediatrics that tested the same question in six Canadian cities with standard North American water fluoridation. They tracked 601 mother-child pairs through the MIREC cohort, measured maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy, then tested the children’s IQ at ages 3-4. The result: a 1 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride predicted a 4.49-point IQ drop in boys.
In August 2024, the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institutes of Health, released a monograph that had been suppressed since. It concluded, with “moderate confidence,” that higher fluoride exposure is “consistently associated with lower IQ in children.”
In September 2024, Senior Federal Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L (the level the U.S. considers “optimal”) “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.” The ruling ordered the EPA to take regulatory action.
Some of the court’s findings:
A 1-point drop in IQ is expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine
Median urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the U.S. are 0.8 mg/L, with some reaching 1.89 mg/L
“Reduced IQ poses serious harm. Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages”
Judge Chen noted: “One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk.”
This is not disputed science from a contested study. This is a federal court, evaluating testimony from both sides, determining that the substance the government puts in the water supply poses an unreasonable neurological risk to children. The EPA’s own expert agreed that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure. The argument was about where the line is, and the court found that the line runs right through the levels Americans are actually exposed to.
The substance in question isn’t even pharmaceutical-grade fluoride. Roughly 90% of the fluoride added to American drinking water is fluorosilicic acid, an industrial waste product captured from the wet scrubbers of phosphate fertilizer factories. Before water fluoridation programs, this waste was an environmental nightmare: when the factories vented it into the air, it scorched vegetation, destroyed crops, and crippled cattle. The EPA once called using it for fluoridation “an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem.” Read that again. The agency didn’t say it was ideal for public health. It was ideal because it solved the fertilizer industry’s disposal problem. Funny how the EPA loves solving industry waste problems.
Instead of paying to dispose of a toxic byproduct, the industry sells it to municipal water systems, who dilute it and pipe it into your home. Same pattern we’ve seen with radioactive oil wastewater brine on roads, sewage “biosolids” on farmland, and industrial seed oils in the food supply: when industry has a waste product it can’t dump, it rebrands the waste as a benefit and sells it to you, or gets the government to buy it with taxpayer money it stole from you.
Birth Control as Endocrine Disruption
Hormonal contraceptives are, by design, endocrine disruptors. That’s literally how they work. They flood the body with synthetic hormones to override the natural reproductive cycle. This isn’t a side effect. It’s the mechanism of action.
An estimated 151 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives. The primary synthetic estrogen in most combined pills is ethinyl estradiol (EE2), a compound so potent it operates at doses measured in micrograms. After it passes through a woman’s body, it gets excreted, enters the wastewater system, and a significant portion survives water treatment. EE2 is biologically active at concentrations as low as parts per trillion.
In a landmark 2007 study in PNAS, researcher Karen Kidd and colleagues added low concentrations of EE2 to a lake in the Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario, Canada. Male fathead minnows became feminized, developing eggs in their testes. The fish population nearly collapsed. Studies of rivers downstream from wastewater plants across the UK and US have found the same pattern: feminized male fish, intersex characteristics, population-level reproductive disruption.
A 2016 Danish study in JAMA Psychiatry followed over one million women for 13 years: women using hormonal contraceptives had significantly increased risk of depression and antidepressant use. Adolescent girls on the combined pill had an 80% higher risk of antidepressant use.
Research on the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) suggests the pill may alter partner preferences, reversing the natural preference for MHC-dissimilar mates.
This is important. Normally you’re attracted to people with different MHC genes from yours (you literally smell this, it’s why someone’s natural scent is attractive or repulsive). Different MHC = offspring with broader immune diversity = healthier kids. The pill flips this. Women on hormonal birth control show preference for MHC-similar men, the opposite of what their biology would normally select.
Women on the pill are biochemically attracted to the wrong partners. Then they go off the pill to conceive and find they’re no longer attracted to the person they married. Women who met their partner while on the pill reported lower sexual satisfaction and were more likely to initiate separation. And the children they do have get a narrower immune profile than natural mate selection would have produced.
The pill doesn’t just suppress fertility while you’re on it. It corrupts the mate selection process that produces healthy offspring when you stop.
Hormonal contraceptives also suppress testosterone and decrease sexual desire, with some research suggesting effects may persist after discontinuation. Most women are never told these effects.
The Mouth Is Not Separate From the Body
Modern dentistry operates on a strange premise: the mouth exists in isolation from the rest of the body. Drill, fill, extract. The same profession that puts mercury in your mouth and tells you it’s safe also never mentions that the diet causing your cavities is causing everything else.
Mercury in Your Mouth
The ADA calls them “silver fillings.” Dental amalgam contains approximately 50% elemental mercury by weight. Mercury vapor is released during chewing, grinding, and brushing.
In 2020, the FDA’s advisory panel raised concerns about vulnerable populations: pregnant women, children, people with kidney disease. The FDA recommended these groups avoid amalgam fillings when possible. The EU has been phasing out dental amalgam, banning use in children under 15 and pregnant women since 2018. The ADA still defends amalgam in the United States.
Weston A. Price: The Dentist Who Saw Everything
Weston A. Price (1870-1948), a Cleveland dentist, traveled the world studying indigenous populations on ancestral diets. His 1939 book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration documented cavity rates as low as 0.09% of teeth examined, wide dental arches, straight teeth, and robust health. These populations consumed diets with at least four times the minerals and ten times the fat-soluble vitamins compared to the American diet.
Within one generation of adopting Western foods (white flour, sugar, vegetable oils), cavity rates exploded, dental arches narrowed, and susceptibility to chronic disease increased dramatically.
Root Canals: The Buried Research
Price conducted studies on root-canaled teeth: he extracted them from patients with systemic diseases, implanted fragments under the skin of rabbits, and the rabbits developed the same diseases. Root-canaled teeth are dead teeth containing miles of microscopic dentinal tubules that cannot be sterilized. Anaerobic bacteria colonize these tubules and produce toxins entering the bloodstream.
Dr. George Meinig, a founding member of the American Association of Endodontists, rediscovered Price’s work and published Root Canal Cover-Up in 1994, concluding that root canals harbored risks the profession never acknowledged.
I’ve personally had a root canal that “looked fine” on an X-Ray. I got it pulled out anyway, and it turned out to be badly infected. I knew something was wrong because I kept getting infections on that side of my head. After it was pulled out, I felt much better within just a few months. If you have root canals, I recommend you get them pulled. It’s not worth preserving a tooth if it means having a bacterial colony leaching toxins out into your bloodstream that your immune system can never reach to clean up.
Medical Devices That Leach
The medical device industry operates under even less scrutiny than pharmaceuticals. Many devices implanted inside the body are approved through the 510(k) pathway, which requires no clinical testing, only a paper argument that the device is “substantially equivalent” to an existing one.
Metal-on-metal hips: In 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics recalled the ASR hip replacement, which was shedding cobalt and chromium ions into patients’ bloodstreams. About 93,000 patients worldwide had the device. Failure rates hit 36.4% in one study. J&J paid $2.5 billion in settlements.
Breast implants: The FDA required boxed warnings in 2021, including risk of BIA-ALCL, a rare cancer linked to textured-surface implants.
Essure: Bayer’s permanent birth control device contained nickel, which affects 10-20% of women. The FDA received nearly 27,000 adverse event reports. Bayer pulled it from the market in 2018.
Transvaginal mesh: Companies have paid an estimated $8 billion in settlements. In 2016, the FDA reclassified the devices to Class III (high-risk). Most manufacturers withdrew rather than conduct safety testing.
The Business Model
Step back and look at the pattern across all of these drug categories.
Antidepressants: barely beat placebo, create dependency through discontinuation syndrome (stopping SSRIs produces withdrawal symptoms so severe they’re often mistaken for relapse, putting the patient right back on the drug), alter children’s brain development in utero, create generational customers.
Statins: lower one number, increase diabetes risk, deplete CoQ10, cause muscle pain, reduce physical activity, require additional supplementation.
PPIs: suppress a symptom, block nutrient absorption, increase kidney disease risk, rarely get discontinued because stopping them causes acid rebound (which feels like the original problem).
Antibiotics: given unnecessarily 28% of the time (and that’s just the official number, probably much higher in reality), permanently damage gut microbiome diversity, linked to downstream metabolic and immune problems.
Fluoride: added to public water as a “preventive measure” to prevent cavities caused by the junk food people are eating, while federal courts and NIH’s own toxicology program document neurological harm to children.
In every case, the model is identical: treat a symptom, create a dependency, generate a new problem, treat that problem. The patient doesn’t get well. The patient becomes a recurring revenue stream.
This is not an accident. It is the logical endpoint of a healthcare system built on a pharmaceutical business model. The pharmaceutical industry doesn’t profit from healthy people. It doesn’t profit from dead people. It profits from sick people who stay alive and stay sick. The ideal customer, from a revenue perspective, is someone who needs multiple medications for the rest of their life, with periodic dose adjustments and new prescriptions as side effects accumulate.
The numbers confirm this. Americans over 65 now commonly take 5 or more prescription medications simultaneously, a practice called polypharmacy.
AI: More Drugs, Faster, For Everything
Now add artificial intelligence to this machine.
The AI in drug discovery market was valued at $1.86 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $6.89 billion by 2029, growing at nearly 30% per year. Every major pharmaceutical company on the planet is investing in AI-driven drug development. The promise, from the industry’s perspective, is speed: AI can identify drug candidates, predict molecular interactions, and optimize compounds in months rather than years.
The problem is, these pharmaceutical companies aren’t looking for real cures. All their research is built on a flawed premise from the get-go.
In June 2025, Insilico Medicine published Phase IIa clinical trial results in Nature Medicine for rentosertib, a drug where both the target and the molecule were identified using generative AI. It was the first clinical proof-of-concept for an entirely AI-generated therapeutic. Multiple AI-designed drugs are now in Phase III trials, with pivotal results expected in 2026. As of December 2025, no AI-discovered drug has received FDA approval, but the pipeline is filling rapidly.
The question nobody in the industry is asking publicly: more drugs, faster, for what purpose?
If the pharmaceutical model were “find the cause of disease and eliminate it,” AI acceleration could be good. But that’s not the model. The model is “find symptoms, develop treatments, maintain customers.” AI doesn’t change the model. It accelerates it. More drug candidates means more potential products. More conditions targetable means more potential markets. Faster development means more drugs reaching patients sooner, which sounds positive until you remember that “patients” in pharmaceutical accounting means “customers,” and the most valuable customer is the one who never stops buying.
What You Can Do
If you’ve read this far, you might be wondering whether the answer is to throw all your medications in the trash. It’s not. Abruptly stopping medications (especially SSRIs, which cause discontinuation syndrome) can be dangerous. The answer is to stop being a passive consumer of pharmaceutical products and start being an informed participant in your own health.
Work with a practitioner who prioritizes root causes, not just symptom management. Functional medicine doctors, naturopaths, and integrative practitioners are trained to ask “why is this happening?” rather than “what drug suppresses this symptom?” This doesn’t mean conventional medicine is useless. It means the standard 15-minute appointment ending in a prescription isn’t healthcare. It’s product distribution.
Question every new prescription. Ask: What is this treating? What is the root cause? What are the long-term risks? How will I eventually get off this? What non-pharmaceutical alternatives exist? If a doctor can’t answer these questions or dismisses them, that’s information about the doctor, not about you.
Protect your gut microbiome. Don’t take antibiotics for viral infections (colds, most sinus infections, most bronchitis). If you need antibiotics, take the narrowest-spectrum option your doctor will prescribe. Rebuild afterward with fermented foods (sauerkraut, kimchi, kefir, yogurt with live cultures), prebiotic fiber (garlic, onions, leeks, asparagus, oats), and time. The Swedish study showed that broad-spectrum antibiotics like clindamycin and fluoroquinolones were vastly more destructive than narrow-spectrum options.
Get fluoride out of your drinking water. A quality reverse osmosis system removes fluoride along with other contaminants. For families with young children or pregnant women, this is no longer precautionary. Fluoride-free toothpaste is widely available. Hydroxyapatite toothpaste (standard in Japan for decades) remineralizes enamel without fluoride.
Build a life that doesn’t require chemical maintenance. A body that eats real food, moves regularly, sleeps well, has social bonds, lives in a low-toxin environment, and has meaningful purpose does not typically require five prescriptions. The medicated society is not inevitable. It’s the result of a toxic food supply, a sedentary culture, a polluted environment, and a medical system incentivized to prescribe rather than prevent. Change the inputs, and you change the outputs.
The pharmaceutical industry spends $14 billion a year telling you that health comes in a bottle. It doesn’t.
You don’t have to participate.
This is Part 8 of the Biology & Survival series, which covers the science showing that by 2045 the average person will become infertile, and explains all the reasons why, so that you can protect yourself, your children, and your grandchildren.
Next up: Part 9 will focus on VOCs and toxic construction materials.
Sources
1. SingleCare. “Prescription drug statistics 2026.” Link
2. Statista. “Pharmaceuticals market, United States.” Link
3. OpenSecrets. “Pharmaceuticals/Health Products lobbying profile.” Link
4. Statista. “Leading lobbying industries in the U.S., 2024.” Link
5. Wouters OJ et al. “Lobbying Expenditures and Campaign Contributions by the Pharmaceutical and Health Product Industry.” JAMA Internal Medicine, 2020. Link
6. HHS. “Fact Sheet: Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertisement.” Link
7. U.S. Senate HELP Committee. “Sanders, King Introduce Bill to Ban Prescription Drug Ads.” Link
8. CDC NCHS Data Brief #528. “Use of Medication for Depression Among Adults, 2023.” Link
9. CDC NCHS Blog. “Antidepressant Use in America.” Link
10. Patel AS et al. “Antidepressant Dispensing to US Adolescents and Young Adults: 2016-2022.” Pediatrics, 2024. Link
11. University of Michigan/IHPI. “Antidepressant dispensing to adolescents surges during pandemic.” Link
12. CDC NCHS Data Brief #283. “Antidepressant Use Among Persons Aged 12 and Over: 2011-2014.” Link
13. Kirsch I et al. “Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the FDA.” PLOS Medicine, 2008. Link
14. BMC/PMC. “Meta-analysis shows difference between antidepressants and placebo is only significant in severe depression.” Link
15. Noetel M et al. “Effect of exercise for depression: systematic review and network meta-analysis.” BMJ, 2024. Link
16. Recchia F et al. “Comparative effectiveness of exercise, antidepressants and their combination.” British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2022. Link
17. Columbia CUIMC. “Does SSRI Use in Pregnancy Raise the Risk of Depression in Teens?” 2025. Link
18. Gingrich JA, Ansorge MS et al. SSRI exposure and fear circuit alterations. Nature Communications, 2025. Link
19. Columbia Mailman School. “Antidepressants During Pregnancy Associated with Childhood Language Disorders.” Link
20. Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. “Effects of statin therapy on diagnoses of new-onset diabetes.” 2024. Link00040-8/fulltext)
21. Thakkar H et al. “Statin use and risk of new-onset diabetes: A meta-analysis.” PubMed, 2017. Link
22. Caso V et al. “Effect of Coenzyme Q10 on Myopathic Symptoms.” American Journal of Cardiology, 2007. Link00255-X/fulltext)
23. Qu H et al. “Effects of Coenzyme Q10 on Statin-Induced Myopathy: Meta-Analysis.” JAHA, 2018. Link
24. PMC. “Proton Pump Inhibitor Use Exceeding FDA Approved Duration.” 2025. Link
25. Biomedicines. “Association between PPI Use and Risk of CKD: Meta-Analysis.” 2024. Link
26. Clinical Therapeutics. “PPI use and risk of CKD: Meta-analysis of observational studies.” 2017. Link
27. PMC. “Long-Term PPI Use: Do PPIs Deplete Nutrients?” Systematic review. Link
28. CDC. “Antibiotic Use in the United States.” Link
29. CDC Archive. “1 in 3 antibiotic prescriptions unnecessary.” 2016. Link
30. Youmshajekian L. “A single course of antibiotics may reshape the gut microbiome for years.” Scientific American, March 2026. Link
31. Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. “Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity.” Lancet Neurology, 2014. Link70278-3/fulltext)
32. NTP. “Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition.” Monograph, 2024. Link
33. Fluoride Action Network. “Federal Court Rules Water Fluoridation Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk.’” 2024. Link
34. PMC. “Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome.” 2017. Link
35. Cleveland Clinic. “Antidepressant Discontinuation Syndrome.” Link
36. Harvard Health. “Going Off Antidepressants.” Link
37. MarketsandMarkets. “AI in Drug Discovery Market Size & Growth Forecast to 2029.” Link
38. Insilico Medicine. “Phase IIa Results of Rentosertib.” Nature Medicine, 2025. Link
39. Drug Target Review. “AI in drug discovery: 2025 in review.” 2026. Link
40. IQVIA. “Understanding the Use of Medicines in the U.S., 2025.” Link
41. JAMA Network Open. Polypharmacy in older adults, 2024. Link
42. Kidd KA et al. (2007). “Collapse of a fish population after exposure to a synthetic estrogen.” PNAS. PubMed
43. Skovlund CW et al. (2016). “Association of Hormonal Contraception With Depression.” JAMA Psychiatry. PubMed
44. Roberts SC et al. (2008). “MHC-correlated odour preferences and oral contraceptives.” Proc Royal Society B. PubMed
45. Panzer C et al. (2006). “Impact of Oral Contraceptives on SHBG and Androgen Levels.” J Sexual Medicine. PubMed
46. USGS. “Intersex Fish Found in Rivers.” Link
47. FDA. “About Dental Amalgam Fillings.” Link
48. FDA (2020). “Recommendations on Mercury-Containing Dental Amalgam.” Link
49. European Commission. “Mercury: Dental Amalgam.” Link
50. Price WA. (1939). Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Link
51. Meinig G. (1994). Root Canal Cover-Up. Link
52. DePuy Hip Recall. Wikipedia. Link
53. PMC (2023). “DePuy ASR failure rates.” Link
54. NBC News (2021). “FDA boxed warnings on breast implants.” Link
55. NYT (2018). “Bayer stops selling Essure.” Link
56. Drugwatch. “Transvaginal Mesh Settlements.” Link
57. Almalki ZS et al. (2023). “Statin utilization trends.” Saudi Pharm J. PMC
58. Ahn J et al. (2009). “Cholesterol and Cancer.” Cancer Epidemiology. Link
59. Scientific Reports (2024). “Cholesterol and cancer mortality.” Link