by Arjun Walia, Collective Evolution:
- The Facts:It was recently disclosed that Pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly paid millions of dollars to the victims of a mass shooter to cover up the connection between the mass shooter and prozac.
- Reflect On:Why are all mass shooters, past and present, always on some similar type of prescription drugs, most notably antidepressants.
Everybody should know by now that pharmaceutical companies are extremely unethical, and that they have a very tight stranglehold over government health regulatory agencies like the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., pharmaceutical companies have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressmen and senators combined.
They are even more powerful than big oil and gas, so you can just imagine the power they exercise over politicians and our federal health regulatory agencies. It’s also important to point out the revolving door that exists between big pharma and federal health regulatory agencies. Julie Gerberding, the Healthcare Businesswomen’s Association ‘Woman of the Year,’ is a prime example of someone who has gone through the revolving door between government regulatory agencies and the corporations they are supposed to be regulating. She was once the Director of the CDC before moving over to an executive position at Merck.
This is no secret, multiple scientists from within these organizations, like the CDC, have even “blown the whistle.”
A group called the CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or CDC SPIDER, put a list of complaints in a letter to the CDC Chief of Staff and provided a copy of the letter to the public watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK).
We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviours.
There are so many examples of pharmaceutical fraud, it’s truly unbelievable how they are able to operate. One of the latest examples comes from the drugmaker that produces Prozac. This is an antidepressant that Joseph Wesbeker’s victims claimed was responsible for his shooting rampage 30 years ago at Standard Gravure. The maker of the drug quietly paid $20 mllion to help “ensure a verdict exonerating the drug company.”
The company is called Eli Lilly, and they hid the payment for more than two decades, all the while defying a Louisville judge who fought to reveal it because he said it influenced the jury’s verdict.
Apparently, Wesbecker started to take Prozac about a month before his killing spree that killed eight and wounded 12 in the print shop attached to the Courier Journal. All but one of the victims sued Eli Lilly.
In exchange for the payment, the plaintiffs – eight estates and 11 survivors – agreed to withhold damaging evidence about the arthritis drug Oraflex that Lilly withdrew from the market. Lilly pleaded guilty to 25 criminal misdemeanor counts for failing to report adverse reactions that patients suffered from the drug, and the drug company feared that the Prozac jury would be more inclined to rule against the drugmaker if it learned of it. The plaintiffs agreed that if the jury found Lilly liable, they would not seek damages, nor would they appeal the verdict if they lost. (source)
Here is another example of fraud I wrote about a few years ago with regards to anti-depressants. Again, it involved pharmaceutical companies that were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported. These are the reports sent to major health authorities like the U.S. FDA. Again, you can read more about that here and access the study.
Prozac is still heavily prescribed today, which is concerning. In fact, antidepressants in general are concerning. Millions believe depression is caused by ‘serotonin deficiency,’ but where is the science in support of this theory?
“Rather than some embarrassingly reductionist, one-deficiency-one-illness-one-pill model of mental illness, contemporary exploration of human behavior has demonstrated that we may know less than we ever thought we did. And that what we do know about root causes of mental illness seems to have more to do with the concept of evolutionary mismatch than with genes and chemical deficiencies.” – Dr. Kelly Kelly Brogan (source)
In fact, a meta-analysis of over 14,000 patients and Dr. Insel, head of the NIMH, had this to say:
“Despite high expectations, neither genomics nor imaging has yet impacted the diagnosis or treatment of the 45 million Americans with serious or moderate mental illness each year.”
To understand what an imbalance is, we must know what balance looks like, and neuroscience has not yet characterized the optimal brain state, nor figured out how to even assess it.
A New England Journal of Medicine review on Major Depression stated:
” … numerous studies of norepinephrine and serotonin metabolites in plasma, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid as well as postmortem studies of the brains of patients with depression, have yet to identify the purported deficiency reliably.”
Read more here: Depression: It’s Not Your Serotonin
In fact, a lot of mass shootings actually have something in common–a lot of these shooters have been prescribed these dangerous drugs. Are we missing something here with regards to this type of ‘medication?’ Why would big pharma go to such lengths to conceal something if they knew it could play a factor in such dangerous and psychopathic behaviour? After all, these drugs are indeed designed to alter the behaviour of individuals.