Eli Lilly (Satan's Chemist)
Vaccine Makers/Drug Industry

[Nasty piece of work, looks like they put mercury in vaccines to cause disease and as part of the depopulation programme.]

Quotes

See: Scott Gottlieb

[2009 Oct] Is Eli Lilly Milking Cancer by Promoting and Treating It? by Jeffrey Smith  Would it be too crass to point out the obvious conflict-of-the-public's-interest that Eli Lilly also markets cancer drugs? In fact their drug Evista, which might help reduce the risk of breast cancer, may lower IGF-1 (according to one small study). So on the one hand, Eli Lilly pushes a milk drug that might increase cancer, and on the other, it comes to the rescue with drugs to treat or "prevent" cancer. Call it the perfect cancer profit cycle.

[Video] Mercury, Autism and the Global Vaccine Agenda   David Ayoub, M.D.

January 15, 2009 - Eli Lilly fined nearly $1.5B in drug marketing case - U.S. drug maker allowed 'off-label' marketing for anti-psychotic drug; to pay largest criminal fine for a corporation. - CNNMoney - "The sum includes a criminal fine of $515 million, which the Justice Department called 'largest criminal fine for an individual corporation ever imposed in a United States criminal prosecution.'"

Trivia Question: Who produced LSD for the CIA and MK-ULTRA in 1954?

Eli Lilly And Thimerosal

[Media May 2006] Eli Lilly's Strattera - 130 reports of suicidality in one month

[2006] Interview of Shane Ellison author of Health Myths Exposed

[Media April 2006] Eli Lilly withheld disastrous effects of Strattera from parents and children

Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human Condition Street Spirit Interview with Robert Whitaker

Lilly Endowment

President Bush appointed Sidney Taurel to his Homeland Security Counsel
on June 11, 2002.

http://www.capitol.northgrum.com/appoint_filled.html

"Sidney Taurel of Indiana is the Chairman, President & CEO of Eli Lilly & Company.  He joined the Lilly subsidiary Eli Lilly International Corporation in 1971, and has held various positions in Brazil, France, Eastern Europe and London.  In 1986 he became president of Eli Lilly International Corporation and then executive vice-president of the pharmaceutical division in 1991"
  
Plus, President Bush's Budget Director is Mitchell Daniels...a former top executive with Eli Lilly.   

[2005 June] Eli Lilly Settles Zyprexa/Diabetes Cases for $690 Million

[Media Jan 2005] Lilly Shares Fall on Report About Prozac Documents

[Nov 2004] Eli Lilly’s highly touted new anti-psychotic, Zyprexa

[April 2, 2004 Eli Lilly drug trial death] A Godsend, Till a Life Unravels

[March 2002] Eli Lilly Documents Reveal Dangers of Thimerosal

[Media Nov 2002] FDA Approves Eli Lilly Drug for ADHD

[Media Nov 2002] Lilly wins shield from autism suits

[Narco News Dec 2002] Coca in the Cola

External links
Dr. Breggin Analyzes the Eli Lilly Prozac-Induced Suicide and Violence Documents Now in Possession of the British Medical Journal (BMJ)

How Lilly Has Been Trying to Discredit Me

Lilly has been attempting to discredit me by linking my views to those
of Scientology, even referring to my views as "Neo-Scientology." It
has done so in official letters and verbal communications to the
media. for example, on July 20, 1994, Eli Lilly's director of
corporate communications, Edward West, faxed a letter to radio station
WBAI-FM in New York City. In the letter, the company refused to debate
me on WBAI, urged the station not to have me on, and linked my views
to those of Scientology. Fortunately, WBAI did invite me on the air,
and then gave me a copy of the Eli Lilly letter.

"On July 5, 1994, reporter Cecelia Goodnow wrote a defense of Prozac
entitled "Experts say its not a prescription for Trouble" in the
Seattle Post Intelligencer in which she quoted Eli Lilly's Edward West
as labeling my views "Neo-Scientology."

"Lilly has tried the same tactics in verbal communications when media
representatives call for information.

 In fact, I have nothing whatsoever to do with Scientology, a
controversial religious group that frequently criticizes psychiatry.
Instead, for the last twenty years, I have spoken out against cults in
general, and specifically against Scientology.

Ironically, Eli Lilly feels the need to discredit me precisely because
I am wholly independent. Unlike many other medical and psychiatric
experts, I have no ties to any special interest groups, from cults to
drug companies. that is why I can write these books."

 The Impact of Lilly's Smear Tactics

 Eli Lilly's campaign has caused damage to me personally and to my
books. In recent months, many contacts from the national media have
questioned me extensively on whether or not I am connected to
Scientology. Eli Lilly representatives have refused media invitations
to debate me, and, instead, seek to discourage the media from allowing
my voice to be heard.

Despite initial sales approaching 40,000 copies, Talking Back to
Prozac has been reviewed in only one large newspaper or magazine. This
one recent exception was a newspaper in Lilly's home town,
Indianapolis, where the book was reviewed by a person who admitted to
taking Prozac himself and who personally cited the contrary opinions
of Lilly's director of corporate communications, calling him by the
familiar name, "Ed."

 My Real Opinion of Scientology

 I am not merely neutral about Scientology. I am critical of
Scientology. I became familiar with the group in 1972 when--for a
short time--I accepted its offer to work together on some reform
projects. As I got to know more about the group, I found myself
opposed to Scientology's values, agenda, and tactics. I stopped all
cooperative efforts in 1974 and publicly declared my criticism of the
group in a letter published in Reason as long ago as January 1975. For
two decades I have refused to have anything to do with Scientology and
have criticized it hundreds of time to the media, on the air, and in
public speeches and workshops.

 I have a yet more personal reason for refusing to have anything to do
with Scientology. In 1973 I met and fell in love with an idealistic
twenty-year-old Ginger Ross; but Scientology officials pressured her
to stop seeing me because I was not a member of their group. Ginger
and I did not meet again for twelve years. By then she had broken all
ties with Scientology and had become a staunch critic of it. We have
now been married for ten years and are the co-authors of Talking Back
to Prozac and The War Against Children.

 That Lilly would try to link my views with those of Scientology, when
Ginger and I are known, long-standing critics of that group, indicates
the giant corporation's desperation to prevent the American public
from learning the truth about Prozac and the company's corporate
practices in researching and promoting it. Eli Lilly's McCarthy-like
tactic of trying to link me with Scientology--when I am in fact
opposed to that organization--reflects the extreme lengths to which
the company will go to protect its profits at the expense of patients.

 Why Would Lilly Do It?

Why would Lilly risk its own reputation by attacking one of its
critics in such an unscrupulous fashion? Why would they do this while
refusing to confront me in open debate and without even trying to make
any factual criticisms of my actual publications? The reason seems
simple enough. Billions of dollars are at stake and truth has been
sacrificed to profit. Were truth on Lilly's side, the company would be
dealing with my criticism in a much more forthright manner--in the
truly American way--through open discussion and debate.




>And, of course, Breggin as a witness fares even worse:

really

recycling drug company lies  often enough doesnt make them true

lets look a something a bit more recent shall we?


Here's what some judges have said about Breggin:

Judge Smith, however, set a Virginia precedent by giving a jury
instruction for involuntary intoxication.  He also expressed
appreciation for Dr. Breggin's testimony. 


January, 2002


     In two recent criminal cases, judges have reduced the sentences
for violent crimes committed under influence of antidepressants.  In
each case, the judges responded to expert testimony by psychiatrist
Peter R. Breggin, M.D. concerning the adverse mental and behavior
effects of SSRI antidepressants, specifically Prozac and Paxil.  Both
judges concluded that the medications contributed to the crimes and in
post-conviction hearings they reduced the sentences of the two men. 
     Dr. Breggin has been an expert in other criminal and civil cases
involving similar SSRI antidepressants, including Zoloft, Celexa and
Luvox.



Thus far, all five tardive dyskinesia cases that have gone to trial
with Dr. Breggin as an expert witness have been won or settled in
favor of the plaintiffs.  These five cases have taken place in
Pennsylvania, Louisiana, New Jersey, Alaska and Canada.  In four of
the cases, the jury found for the plaintiff.  One jury award was for
$6.7 million.  In the fifth and most recent case, the defendants
settled after Dr. Breggin's testimony and therefore the case did not
go to the jury.      
    In examining the reasons for success in these cases, Dr. Breggin
stated that the standards of care in regard to neuroleptic treatment
and tardive dyskinesia are among the most clearly defined in
psychiatry.  When they are ignored or disregarded by physicians, the
results can be devastating to the patient. 
    Attorney Danny McGlynn of Baton Rouge, Lousiana was the trial
lawyer for the Pennsylvania and Lousiana cases, and has developed
considerable expertise in this arena.
    Dr. Breggin has also been a medical expert in several dozen other
tardive dyskinesia suits that have settled before going to court.  The
settled cases include malpractice suits against doctors and health
facilities, and product liability suits against manufacturers of
antipsychotic drugs.   Only the most difficult cases tend to end up in
trial.
    The latest case took place in New Jersey and involved allegations
of malpractice against doctors and a clinic.  (Daye vs. University of
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey et al. in the Superior Court of
New Jersey Law Division: Essex County.)  The plaintiff was an
African-American woman who was treated as an outpatient with several
different neuroleptic (antipsychotic) drugs.  She developed severe
tardive dyskinesia and tardive dystonia.  Her neck and her back were
especially afflicted, causing a painful arching (extension) of her
muscles.  She also suffered from facial grimaces.  The tardive
dyskinesia disabled and disfigured her, and tended to make her look
mentally ill.
    Dr. Breggin testified that the plaintiff''s doctors had not
properly informed and educated the patient about the dangers of
tardive dyskinesia, that they had failed to properly monitor her, and
that they had failed to diagnose the disorder in its early stages when
it may have been reversible.  He testified on a variety of related
medical topics, including the nature of clinical trials and the FDA
drug approval process.      
    The attorneys for the plaintiff were Jack Wurgaft and Eric Kahn.


 Case of Paxil-Induced Mania and Aggression

    In November 2001 in Charlestown, South Carolina, Dr. Breggin
testified at a sentencing hearing before Judge Edward E. Cottinham.  A
27-year-old man with no prior history of violence pleaded guilty to
charges of rape.  Dr. Breggin presented evidence that Paxil can cause
mania with disinhibition and aggressive sexuality, and that a
Paxil-induced Mood Disorder caused or contributed to the defendant's
actions.  Dr. Breggin described the FDA approval process and related
topics.  Despite his initial skepticism, the judge concluded that
Paxil did contribute to the man's crime.  Instead of sentencing him to
two consecutive life sentences with no hope of parole, he gave him a
more limited 21-year sentence with actual release in 19 years. 
     The hearing was held in the Charleston County General Sessions
Court on November 15, 2001.  The attorney for the defendant was Andrew
Savage. 

A Case of Prozac-Induced Violence
     Earlier in 2001 in Abington, Virginia, Dr. Breggin testified in a
jury trial presided over by Judge Charles H. Smith, Jr.  The case
involved a man who shot his estranged wife and a deputy sheriff who
was trying to protect her.  Fortunately, the victims recovered.
However, the defendant was severely wounded in the shoot out.  He
faced many charges including kidnapping and malicious wounding.  At
the time of the incident, he was being treated with Prozac, Remeron,
and BuSpar.  Dr. Breggin testified on adverse drug reactions, drug
labeling, FDA procedures, and criminal responsibility, including
involuntary intoxication.  The jury found the man guilty.  Judge
Smith, however, set a Virginia precedent by giving a jury instruction
for involuntary intoxication.  He also expressed appreciation for Dr.
Breggin's testimony. 
     The sentencing hearing was held before Judge Smith in November
2001 and the judge gave the defendant a reduced sentence.  In his
written opinion, Judge Smith specifically cited Dr. Breggin's original
testimony concerning the effect of the prescription drugs on the
defendant's mental condition and behavior.  The attorney for the
defendant was Randall Eads. 







> He's untrained.

yeah right.

recycling drug company lies  often enough doesnt make them true


 Peter R. Breggin, M.D. began in the full time private practice of
psychiatry in 1968.  Dr. Breggin has been informing the professions,
media and the public about the potential dangers of drugs,
electroshock, psychosurgery, involuntary treatment, and the biological
theories of psychiatry for over three decades.  He is the author of
dozens of scientific articles and more than fifteen professional books
about psychiatric medication, the FDA and drug approval process, the
evaluation of clinical trials, and standards of care in psychiatry and
related fields. 
      In 1972 he founded The International Center for the Study of
Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP) as a nonprofit research and
educational network.  The Center is c oncerned with the impact of
mental health theory and practices upon individual well-being,
personal freedom, and family and community values.  He also founded
the peer-review journal, Ethical Human Sciences and Services . 
      For thirty years Dr. Breggin has served as a medical expert in
many civil and criminal suits including product liability suits
against the manufacturers of psychiatric drugs.  His work provided the
scientific basis for the original combined Prozac suits and for the
more recent Ritalin class action suits. 
      Dr. Breggin's background includes Harvard College, Case Western
Reserve Medical School, a teaching fellowship at Harvard Medical
School, a two-year staff appointment to the National Institute of
Mental Health, and a faculty appointment to the Johns Hopkins
University Department of Counseling.

 
"In its recent infatuation with symptomatic, push-button remedies,
psychiatry has lost its way not only intellectually but spiritually
and morally.  Even when it is not actually doing damage to the people
it is supposed to help,it is encouraging among doctors and patients
alike the fraudulent and dangerous fantasy that life's every passing
'symptom' can be clinically diagnosed and, once diagnosed, alleviated
if not eliminated by pharmacological intervention."

Paul R. McHugh