We, the Undersigned, demand a Grand Jury
Investigation into serious misconduct concerning Prozac on the part of Eli
Lilly, the drug’s manufacturer. Specifically, we assert that Eli Lilly has
known of and engaged in the suppression of the truth concerning the drug’s
ability to cause suicide and suicidal ideation. We assert that Eli Lilly has
knowingly and fraudulently concealed facts surrounding its drug’s deadly
side effects. Documented findings of cover-ups supporting our demand include,
but are not limited to, the following:
· Eli Lilly has known Prozac (fluoxetine) causes akathisia, defined as an
extreme subjective feeling of inner restlessness. This condition has long been
known to be caused by antipsychotic drugs and recognized as leading to
suicidal and homicidal-suicidal feelings. Lilly's own internal documents show
the condition was identified in association with Prozac as early as 1978.
· August 2, 1978, when only three trials were underway, minutes of a meeting
of the Fluoxetine (Prozac) Project Team read: "There have been a fairly
large number of reports of adverse reactions... Another depressed patient
developed psychosis... Akathisia and restlessness were reported in some
patients." A similar meeting held 10 days earlier stated, "…some
patients have converted from severe depression to agitation within a few days;
in one case the agitation was marked and the patient had to be taken off [the]
drug." The minutes further state, "…in future studies the use of
benzodiazepines to control the agitation will be permitted.” From that point
on, Lilly's trial subjects were put on tranquillizers to get them over the
akathisia experienced by some in the early days on the drug. Those who
developed akathisia or who had any suicidal tendencies were excluded from the
trial data on the basis that they would otherwise obscure the results of the
drug's success in treating depression.
· Lilly internal documents, May 25, 1984 – Upon examing Prozac trial
results, the German licensing authority (the Bundes Gesundheit Amt (BGA))
issued a letter stating: "During the treatment with the preparation
[Prozac], 16 suicide attempts were made, two of these with success. As
patients with a risk of suicide were excluded from the studies, it is probable
that this high proportion can be attributed to an action of the preparation
[Prozac]."
· January 1985, the Germans told Lilly that they would not license the drug,
citing "suicidal risk" as one of the reasons for their decision.
Lilly's scientists continued trying to persuade the BGA to grant a license,
but focused most of their efforts on the US. By August 1989, it was clear to
Lilly that the BGA would demand that Prozac carry a warning to General
Practitioners (GPs) that they should be aware of the risk of suicide unless
they gave patients sedation along with Prozac. A warning of a "risk of
suicide" finally went on the German package insert in 1992. It also
stated, "For his/her own safety, the patient must be sufficiently
observed, until the antidepressive effect of Fluctin [Prozac] sets in. Taking
an additional sedative may be necessary."
· During the licensing process in the US Lilly did not tell the FDA of the
German concerns.
· Lilly has repeatedly attempted to suggest suicidality reflects patient’s
disorders. Yet, Lilly’s own scientist, John Heiligenstein, wrote in an
internal memo on September 14, 1990: "We feel caution should be exercised
in a statement that 'suicidality and hostile acts in patients taking Prozac
reflect the patient's disorder and not a causal relationship to Prozac'.
Post-marketing reports [reports from GPs of suicides and violence in patients
on the drug] are increasingly fuzzy and we have assigned, 'Yes, reasonably
related', on several reports.
· This Heiligenstein memo was written two years after Prozac was granted a
license by the FDA, and just months after a study report by Martin Teicher,
Jonathan Cole and Carol Glod was published. According to the study, 6 patients
with a history of depression became violently suicidal in a way that surprised
themselves and their doctors while on the drug. The report noted that suicidal
thoughts occurred within days or weeks of going on Prozac, or of having the
dosage increased beyond a certain level, and that such thoughts disappeared
when the patient stopped taking the drug. Lilly insisted that Prozac did not
cause akathesia; the company asserted that the link between akathesia and
suicide is questionable.
· Lilly's internal documents of that time show that public criticism was
threatening the drug’s success. Some were coming out of the UK.
· An internal memo from Leigh Thompson, one of Lilly’s chief scientists,
stated, "Anything that happens in the UK can threaten this drug [Prozac]
in the US and worldwide…" "We are now expending enormous efforts
fending off attacks because of 1) relationship to murder and 2) inducing
suicidal ideation [suicidal behaviour].”
· Another memo from Thompson ran: "I am concerned about reports I get re
UK attitude toward Prozac safety. Leber [Dr Paul Leber of the FDA] suggested a
few minutes ago we use CSM [British Committee on Safety of Medicines] database
to compare Prozac aggression and suicidal ideation with other antidepressants
in the UK. Although he is a fan of Prozac and believes a lot of this is
garbage, he is clearly a political creature and will have to respond to
pressures. I hope Patrick [probably a Lilly employee, but not identified fully
in the memo] realizes that Lilly can go down the tubes if we lose Prozac, and
just one event in the UK can cost us that.”
(All points outlined above are supported by documented findings published in
The Guardian; “They said it was safe”; Sarah Boseley; October 30, 1999)
FURTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
1.As cited above, In 1990, Martin Teicher et al, of Harvard Medical School,
reported six cases of "intense suicidal preoccupation" in patients
who had been prescribed the drug. According to the authors, "none of
these patients had ever experienced a similar state during treatment with any
other psychotropic drug." (American Journal of Psychiatry, February 1990)
2. Dr. David Graham, chief of the FDA's Epidemiology Branch, wrote on Sept.
11, 1990, that Lilly's data on suicide and Prozac, and data garnered from a
study by Drs. Maurizio Fava and Jerrold Rosenbaum of Massachusetts General
Hospital (citing no significant difference in "suicidal ideation" in
patients treated with fluoxetine compared to those receiving other
antidepressants) was insufficient to prove that Prozac was safe. In an
internal FDA memo, Graham wrote: "Because of apparent large-scale
underreporting, the firm's analysis cannot be considered as proving that
fluoxetine and violent behavior are unrelated." Rosenbaum's objectivity
has been questioned. Not only was his study on Prozac and suicide criticized
by at least two sets of researchers as well as the FDA, but also documents
obtained by The Boston Globe illustrate Rosenbaum's questionable relationship
to Lilly. He has served as a Prozac researcher and sat on a marketing advisory
panel for Lilly before Prozac was launched. (Leah R. Garnett; “As drug gets
remade, concerns about suicides surface”; Boston Globe, 5/7/2000)
3. In September 1991, an advisory committee of the FDA cleared Prozac.
“Suicidal ideation" and "violent behaviours" were added to
the label as "reported, but not proven." (Robert Bourguignon MD;
“Problems with Prozac”; http://www.camtech.net.au/malam/reports/prozac.htm)
4. In 1994, David Healy (then consultant to Eli Lilly) published an article
entitled "The Fluoxetine and Suicide Controversy, a Review of the
Evidence” in which he stated that antidepressants, Prozac included, can
indeed induce suicidal behaviour. (CNS Drugs, March 1994)
5. The FDA's adverse event reporting system (AERS) reveals 28,623 Prozac
adverse events (ADEs) (Garnered from data gathered via Freedom of Information
Act):
· 63% of 1,734 deaths reported - 1,089 - were attributed to suicides.
· Suicide attempts numbered 1,885.
· Over 10% of the total 28,623 ADEs reported were attributed to suicides and
suicide attempts.
6. By the Government Accounting Office’s own admissions, reported FDA
Adverse Drug Events only reflect an estimated 1%, to a conservative 10% of
actual events, and “are unlikely to be representative of the much larger
number of unreported events.” (“Adverse Drug Events – the Magnitude of
Health Risk is Uncertain Because of Limited Incidence Date”, Jan. 2000;
GAO/HEHS-00-21) Given this lack of actual data, Prozac numbers could be
projected to be in the area of 10,890 deaths by suicide and 18,850 suicide
attempts at 10% reporting. At 1% reporting, 108,900 suicides and 188,500
suicide attempts could be projected.
7. Recent studies reveal over 50,000 deaths related to Prozac and estimate
that between 7% and 10% of individuals exposed to Prozac will have some kind
of adverse reaction. (The Boston Globe; "As drug gets remade, concerns
about suicides surface"; Leah R. Garnett, Globe Staff; May 7, 2000; ©
Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company)
8. According to internal documents and other documented material made
available to The Boston Globe, (Leah R. Garnett, Globe Staff; “As drug gets
remade, concerns about suicides surface”; The Boston Globe, 5/7/2000):
· In 1990, Lilly scientists were pressured by corporate executives to alter
records on physician experiences with Prozac, changing mentions of suicide
attempts to "overdose" and suicidal thoughts to
"depression." In an electronic communiqué (obtained by author Dr.
Joseph Glenmullen, Prozac Backlash) from Claude Bouchy, a Lilly employee in
Germany, to three Lilly corporate executives at Lilly’s Indianapolis
headquarters, dated November 13, 1990: Bouchy says he and a colleague
"have problems with the directions our safety people are getting from the
corporate group (Drug Epidemiology Unit) and requesting that we change the
identification of events as they are reported by the physicians. . ." He
further reported, “Our safety staff is requested to change the event term
`suicide attempt' [as reported by the physician] to `overdose.' " He
added, “...it is requested that we change . . . `suicidal ideation' to
`depression.' " He informed his US Lilly colleagues: "I do not think
I could explain to the BGA, to a judge, to a reporter or even to my family why
we would do this especially on the sensitive issue of suicide and suicidal
ideation. At least not with the explanations that have been given to our staff
so far."
· Three years before Prozac received approval by the US Food and Drug
Administration in late 1987, the German BGA had such serious reservations
about Prozac's safety that it refused to approve the antidepressant based on
Lilly's studies showing that previously non-suicidal patients who took the
drug had a fivefold higher rate of suicides and suicide attempts than those on
older antidepressants, and a threefold higher rate than those taking placebos.
· Lilly's own figures indicate that 1 in 100 previously non-suicidal patients
who took the drug in early clinical trials developed a severe form of anxiety
and agitation called akathisia, causing them to attempt or commit suicide
during the studies.
· A patent for a new Prozac (US Patent no. 5,708,035), R-fluoxetine, expected
to be marketed by Lilly beginning in 2002, (as of the 2000 Globe report)
states the new version will not produce several existing side effects
including "akathisia, suicidal thoughts, and self-mutilation…one of its
more significant side effects." This is the same effect Lilly has
repeatedly denied to have occurred in any substantial way in some 200 lawsuits
against them over the past decade. Most of the suits were settled out of court
and the terms kept confidential.
· Lilly will pay Sepracor, Inc., who holds the patent for the new Prozac, an
upfront payment and license fee of $20 million and an additional $70 million
based on the progression of the drug. Lilly will have exclusive world rights
to the drug, will be responsible for development, product manufacturing,
regulatory submissions, and marketing and sales – Sepracor to receive
royalties according to a Sepracor press release dated April 13.
· Dr. Martin Teicher, whose early 1990’s studies linked Prozac to akathisia
and suicide, is a co-inventor of the new Prozac, along with Timothy J.
Barberich, the CEO of Sepracor Inc., (a Marlborough drug company), and James
W. Young. They filed their patent in August 1993, the same year Teicher
published "Antidepressant Drugs and the Emergence of Suicidal
Tendencies”, which concluded that patients on Prozac were at least three
times more likely to become suicidal than those on older antidepressants.
(Journal Drug Safety)
· Figures in a 1984 Lilly document indicated that akathisia, the severe
agitation that can lead to suicide, occurs in at least 1 percent of patients,
a level considered a "frequent" event, and as such must be disclosed
in a company's product literature and package inserts. But there is no such
disclosure in Prozac's US literature. Akathisia is listed in Lilly's US
product literature, but as an infrequent event in Prozac users. No mention is
made of its potential relationship to suicide.
In conclusion, we believe the FDA and Eli Lilly must be held accountable as to
their negligent, fraudulent and cover-up activities concerning this deadly
drug. Given the above cited findings, we firmly believe that it is only
through a Grand Jury Investigation that the rights of the unsuspecting
American consuming public can be best served, that unconscionable future
suffering may be averted, and many lives saved. We, the undersigned, most
earnestly request that a thorough investigation into Eli Lilly’s and the
FDA’s practices concerning Prozac, both past and present, be vigorously
pursued as per the powers vested in you to do so. Countless innocent lives
depend on it…
“All truth passes through three stages: First it is Ridiculed.
Second, it is Violently Opposed. Third, it is Accepted as being
Self-Evident.”
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1778-1860)
Respectfully Yours,
Sincerely,
From: "Dore Williamson" <angelfire@redrose.net>
Subject: the truth about AIDS
Date: 1997/09/21
Transcription from a broadcast of Network 23, a program shown on a local Los
Angeles Public Access Cable channel.
In the early 1970's, Henry Kissinger wrote
a top secret document- a National Security memorandum (*NSM 200*) in which he
indicated that depopulation should be the highest priority of the US foreign
policy towards the third world. This memorandum which can be obtained from the
US National Archives, which was declassified very quietly in 1990, was adopted
by the National Security Council as official US foreign policy towards the
third world. Now this is the classic example of the secret government in
action, because none of this was known to Congress, and certainly, it was not
known to the American people. Did any of you know that depopulation was
considered a matter of Us national security? Did any of you know that in the
past 20 years, depopulation has been the highest long range priority of US
foreign policy towards the third world? No, you didn't, because it was
classified, it was secret.
Here is an exerpt from this document written by Henry Kissinger. "Reduction of the rate of population in these United States is a matter of vital US national security". There is even a map stating where those areas are indicated where depopulation would be desirable. It is all third world countries , all yellow and brown people. "The US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially in less developed countries. That fact gives the US enhanced interests in the political, economic and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to economic interests of the United States."
Now when Kissinger says, "economic interests of the United States", he means…the interests of US corporations, which are, in fact, multinational corporations, with no loyalty to this country whatsoever. NSM 200, unlike other government documents on the subject, outlined "international and political and economic aspects." Like we have been saying all along, the New World Order is a business, and the US government is in the business of business.
The next document is from the US Senate Library. It is the record of the Appropriations Hearing that wa held in July of 1969, where the department of the Army specifically requested and received $10 million to develop " a synthetic biological agent that would impair and destroy the human immune system." There are several published articles from the World Health Organization written about the same time, which advocated similar kinds of research towards the development of a "hybrid virus that could selectively affect the human immune system." Like it or not , these documents exist. The Kissinger Memorandum, the Army Appropriations Hearing, and the articles from the World Health Organization; these are all official records…facts of history…that can be disputed.
We might also point out an incredible coincidence. The World Health Organization went into Central Africa in 1972…into the area known as the "Aids belt", and administered a smallpox vaccination to several thousands of Africans. This event was followed immediately by the first outbreak of Aids on this planet…a remarkable coincidence…that was noted on the front page headline in the London Times, but has never even been mentioned in the US Media…NEVER MENTIONED…. Another startling fact that was never mentioned in the mainstream media…. The Hepatitis B Vaccine that was given to several thousand male homosexuals in New York and San Francisco in 1978. The fact is, every single person who received that vaccine contracted Aids….every single one of them…without exception.
That is what the first American victims of Aids all had in common. They all had the Hepatitis B vaccine.. This is a documented fact. Aids began in America in 1978 in the homosexual communities of New York and San Francisco, immediately following a government sponsored program of Hepatitis B Vaccinations. This is all completely documented, completely true.
Read a "Higher Form of Killing", which documents over 500 specific cases of biological experimentaion by our government on an unsuspecting public. If you don't think they do that sort of thing, you are uninformed. There is also an official government report from the Royal Society of Medicine in Great Britain, in which they state unequivocally that "saliva and blood are vastly more infectious than genital secretions," and "that Aids meets none of the criteria of a venereal disease. That despite the misrepresentation of the American Medical Establishment and the American Government, AIDS is not primarily a sexually transmitted disease."
Dr. Cantwell, Dr. Hazeltine, Dr. Alonso, all agree that the AIDS virus could never have occurred spontaneoulsy in nature. That animal viruses cannot jump species as a green monkey bit an African and precipitated the pandemic of AIDS. We know as a scientific fact that viruses cannot jump species, unles they are specifically engineered to do so. And we also know for a scientific fact that the AIDS virus bears no resemblance whatsoever found in a green monkey, but does bear a total resemblance to cow virus and sheep virus, which somehow have been bonded together. The only possible way for these two different species of virus could bond together, would be in a laboratory, something engineered in a laboratory, and then further engineered to make the jump case of infection…viral infection… that is known and reported, there are 99 cases, that are unknown and reported. This means that if we have 200,000 known cases of AIDS, then there are 20 million right behind it. 20 million Americans who are HIV positive and don't know it. We also shared quotes from several doctors who believe that the HIV infection rate has now reached approx 10 million people on the continent of Africa, 30 to 50 million in Asia, and less than 20 million in the US.
The laws if Virology state that the rate of infection in the retrovirus, like the AIDS virus, the rate of infection will double every 12 months. Another frightening fact that no one has bothered to tell us, that there are 6 basic types of AIDS virus, that each of these basic types, being what is called a "recombinant retrovirus", has a recombinant potential of 9,000 to the 4th power. "Recombinant" means the ability to change and recombine into something new, and the calculation 9,000 to the 4th power times 6 is literally into the hundreds of millions of trillions of different possible forms and manifestations of the Aids virus. We are not being told the truth about the plague.
An excerpt from a speech by Craig Hulet. Craig Hulet was a former advisor to the National Security Council, and a former consultant to several multi-national corporations, and he has crossed over and is writing and lecturing on the subject of the New World Order. Mr. Hulet knows first hand the kind of men who are running the world. He knows what they are up to and he is trying to warn us. He was giving a speech about George Bush and the New World Order, and he was asked a question about AIDS, and this is how he responded:
"..biological warfare virus by the Us military….We are never be able to prove…Strecker, William Douglas, that AIDS was developed, specifically to reduce the populations of Central Africa, the black inner cities, drug users, prostitutes, and homosexuals. But it just seems strange to me that through the 60's and 70's there were books published, the Global 2000 report to the President, the Club of Rome wrote a book on over population, I must have 50 books on over population and the need to get rid of a certain large amount of people on the planet. Now, they never say which people ought to be gotten rid of, but it seems a major coincidence that the same people that are starving in Ethiopia, in Sudan, are the same people that are getting AIDS and dying. By the year 2000, they expect 60 million blacks in Central Africa to die of AIDS. It could be as many as 20 million in America. Homosexuals predominately and the interesting thing is, it is not a homosexual disease. It is a man-made mutant disease. It had to have been man-made. Sheep do not get together and do chemical experiments on their viruses. So a man had to create this bovine virus, which they know that is is, into a human cell. So we know that its a device. Whether AIDS was created for the purpose of exterminating the very same, coincidentally, the same social element that the men I did business with for 15 or 20 years, thought ought to be gotten rid of anyways; homosexuals, prostitutes, blacks, etc. and of course, the Black continent, where they want the resources , but they certainly don't want to feed the people. Why are they allowing the destruction to take place? Why are they doing nothing to stop it? Here Is my theory; They will find a cure, when about 1 billion people on this planet have died from AIDS, starvation, and disease, all over the world, suddenly Eli Lilly, who is one of the major corporations doing AIDS research, and coincidentally, George Bush is on the board of Eli Lilly, when they finally eliminate huge sections of the population, which is what they wanted to do throughout the 60's and 70's, because of overpopulation…it is called "mitigating the problem". They feel that AIDS, famine and disease will mitigate the problem of over population. Eli Lilly will announce a phenomenal cure for AIDS, but not until allot of people die, coincidentally, the ones that these people despise the most, those people just happen to be the ones who are contracting AIDS. The CIA and the National Security Council are too brilliantly planned. They plan everything to the most minute detail. I can't believe this is all coincidence. Once again, even though it cannot be proved in any absolute sense, because absolute proof is impossible in a relative universe, and one of the tricks of the cynic or skeptic, they demand absolute proof, knowing full well there is no such thing as absolute proof, there is only evidence, and a certain point you make a decision on the basis of he evidence. So by the evidence, AIDS was deliberately created and implemented by the United States Government.
I believe that Bush was deeply involved, a major player, particularly in the implementation of this epidemic. There was an article in the La Times that says "Bush defends AIDS budget" and "urges behavioral changes". There was a protest demonstration in Kennebunkport, Maine… the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power marched through the tine donwtown area of Kennebunkport. Bush criticized the gay activists for 'hurting holiday business', in this picturesque New England resort. Quote.. Bush talking.." To the degree the message hits, some merchant in Kennebunkport, on the best weekend possible, and caused them to close their doors, I got that part of it, and I didn't like it." This is one cold reptile. Bush goes on to say.."you know why they are here. I know why. They were here. They were here because you all are here', he said to the White House Press Corp. "They were here because they can get TV coverage, and to some degree, print coverage, because the President happened to be at home." You see, he is comtemptuous to those who have this disease. A spokesperson for the demonstrators said that most of Bush's AIDS policy has gone into research on AZT, a drug that can best, slow the progression of the disease. When asked what he thought should be done about the AIDS crises, Bush said, "I'm in favor of behavioral change". What he is saying basically is that AIDS is caused by immoral behavioral, immoral sexual behavior or immoral drug use. He knows that's a lie, but he is a liar, so what do you expect. He is a master of deception.
This is a document from the House of Common Social Services Committee, prepared by the Royal Society of Medicine in Great Britain. You cannot get more official than this in Great Britain. It states: "The scale of deception and misinformation perpetrated by virologists, clinicians and editors of scientific and medical journals about the infectivity of genital secretions, compared with that of blood and saliva, has been astonishing. In the presence of a new, lethal virus, spreading amongst people, for which no vaccine or cure is in sight, every person would assume that scientists have been working day and night to verify how it has been transmitted. On the contrary, having assumed on a variety of motives that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease, a negligable research effort has gone into the critical matter of transmission. A few preliminary papers were published and their findings have been repeatedly quoted as showing the opposite of what they actually showed. When this was pointed out in letters to the editors f American medical and scientific journals, publication has been refused. No attempt has been made to check or double check the findings in other laboratories, or to rectify public errors. As far as it goes, the tiny research effort into infectivity of bodily fluids indicates that saliva is far more infectious than genital secretions, but that blood is vastly more infectious than either. Consequently, the idea that condoms can have any significant effect on the spread of AIDS in a nation is utterly preposterous. Governments all over the world are spending millions of pounds (dollars) advising their citizens to prevent AIDS by using condoms on the basis of manifestly fraudulent misrepresentations of scientific evidence."
If you want the truth about AIDS? Get outside the American blackout. Get outside the boundries of the so-called "freeist nation on earth". Back in the 60's, we in America used to feel sorry for the Russians, because they weren't getting the whole picture.. Well, now, weknow. We know exactly what it is like to live in a society where crucial information, information critical to our survival is being controlled and oppressed by the government. The bottom line? Very serious bad guys are in control of your planet. And a name at the top of the list is George Bush. ____________________________________________________________________________ __July 1, 1969 United States Senate Library Hearings Before a Subcommitee of the committee on Appropriations House of Representatives, Ninety First Congress, First session Subcommitee on Department of Defense Part 5 Development, Test, and Evaluation There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent bilogists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years, it would be possible to produce a synthetic bilogical agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired. (Mr Sikes). Are we doing any work in that field? (Dr. MacArthur). We are not. (Mr Sikes)
Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest? (Dr. MacArthur) Certainly not lack of interest. (Mr. Sikes) Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what advantages of such a program would be, the time and the cost involved? (Dr. MacArthur) We will be very happy to..
The information:
The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observation:
1)
All biological agents up to the present time are representatives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes.
2)
Within the next 5 to 10 years, it will be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease causing organism. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
3)
A research program to explore the feasibility of this would be completed in approximately 5 years at a cost of $10 million.
4)
It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientists in the field, almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD.
However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NAS-NRC). The matter was discussed with the NAS-NRC and tentative plans were made to initiate the program. However, decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program, and our reluctance to involve the NAS-NRC in such a controversial endeavor have lead us to postpone it for the past 2 years. It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to another massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it, there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research program. In, 1970, they were given their 10 million dollars. The Strecker Memorandum With no cure and no effective treatment in sight by the year 2000, everyone in the U.S. will be affected with AIDS.
In his memorandum, Dr. Strecker has documented evidence and refutes virtually everything the so-called experts and the government have told you about AIDS.
1) AIDS is a man-made disease.. 2) AIDS is NOT a homosexual disease. 3) AIDS CAN be carried by mosquitos. 4) Condoms will not prevent AIDS.
The most common misconception being foisted among us right now concerns the sexually active Americans. We are told that if a man uses a condom the transference of the deadly virus is virtually eliminated. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Of all the body fluids that the ADS virus is found in, semen is the least. As a matter of fact, in every single study ever, no one has found a significant amount in anyone's semen. Even for arguements sake, lets say that the Aids virus is massive in one ejaculation, the condoms are riddled with holes that are ten times the size of the AIDS virus. That is like shooting a golf ball through a basketball hoop. Condoms have not, will not, and cannot, prevent AIDS. AIDS was PREDICTED….REQUESTED….CREATED…DEPLOYED Video Dr. Robert B. Strecker The Strecker Group 1501 Colorado Blvd. Eagle Rock, CA. 90041
Drug Industry Seeks Ways to Capitalize on Election Success
From: baby_p_nut@yahoo.com (Baby Peanut) Newsgroups: misc.health.aids Subject: Drug Industry Seeks Ways to Capitalize on Election Success November 21, 2002 By ROBERT PEAR and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 - Having spent more than $30 million to help elect their allies to Congress, the major drug companies are devising ways to capitalize on their electoral success by securing favorable new legislation and countering the pressure that lawmakers in both parties feel to lower the cost of prescription drugs, industry officials say. The industry's hand appears stronger now than at any other time in recent years, a result of its large donations to political parties and candidates and millions of dollars spent on television advertising by industry-financed groups. The money was spent overwhelmingly on behalf of Republicans, who now control both houses of Congress. Executives of the major drug manufacturers met last week at the Westfield International Conference Center, near Dulles International Airport in Northern Virginia, to plan ways to turn that influence into legislative victories. The executives included Robert Essner, president of Wyeth; Peter R. Dolan, chairman of Bristol-Myers Squibb; Sidney Taurel, chairman of Eli Lilly; and Raymond V. Gilmartin, chairman of Merck. They discussed specific ways to leverage their investment in this year's elections to advance their agenda on Capitol Hill, participants said. The meeting was described by an industry lobbyist as a "strategic planning retreat" and "deep philosophical conversations about our message for 2003." A pervasive theme was how to block proposals that could erode profits by limiting drug prices or making it easier for people to buy low-cost generic versions of brand-name medicines. Drug industry executives who attended the conference, put on by the industry's main lobbying arm, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said they were delighted with the election results, yet cautious and apprehensive, given the pressure that Republicans as well as Democrats face from voters demanding lower drug prices. "Sure, we will have more access," one executive said. "Our hand is stronger because of the election results, but who knows how much stronger it really is." Already, industry executives have been encouraged by a recent move to insert a provision in the domestic security bill limiting the legal liability of vaccine manufacturers like Eli Lilly. On Tuesday, several senators from both parties said Republican leaders had promised to alter the provision next year, so it would apply only to vaccines made in the future. But today, aides to Representative Tom DeLay, the incoming House majority leader, said Mr. DeLay had agreed only to consider such proposals. Aides to several Republican senators troubled by the provision said they were confident that the deal would stand. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, a frequent drug company critic, said: "With the election, they certainly have more friends in Congress. They should be feeling their oats these days." The pharmaceutical industry topped the Fortune 500 list of the most profitable industries, providing investors with an 18.5 percent return on revenues last year. But many drug companies report sagging profits in 2002. The industry's No. 1 goal is to shape legislation that both parties advocate to provide prescription benefits to the 40 million elderly and disabled people in the Medicare program. What the industry fears most is price controls or any federal effort to establish a list of preferred drugs that leaves out other medications. Democrats want to give the government a large role in managing Medicare drug benefits, while Republicans would rely more on competing private health plans, insurance companies and pharmaceutical benefits managers. The industry is also fighting legislation that would speed the approval and marketing of generic drugs. The Senate passed such a bill in July, with support from 49 Democrats and 28 Republicans, but it died in the House. So far, most Republicans have backed the brand-name drug industry in its battle with generic drug makers. But brand-name drug makers worry that the pressure to limit drug spending, and the cost of Medicare drug benefits, will lead more Republicans to promote the use of generic drugs. The industry's agenda also includes these items: ¶Drug companies adamantly oppose legislation making it easier for consumers, pharmacists and wholesalers to import drugs from Canada, where prices are usually lower. Such imports could endanger public health, they say. ¶Drug makers oppose Congressional efforts to limit or discourage drug advertising on television and in newspapers and magazines. Drug makers say such advertisements convey useful information, but critics say they contribute to explosive growth in drug spending. ¶Many pharmaceutical companies want to limit damages in lawsuits filed by people who say they have been injured by the use of certain drugs. Many drug makers have been named as defendants in class action suits. Representative Rob Portman of Ohio, part of the House Republican leadership team, said, "There is a consensus now in Washington, not just in the House but in the Senate and at the White House, that we need to provide seniors with a prescription drug benefit under Medicare." On Oct. 21, President Bush proposed a regulation to get generic drugs to the market faster. Mr. Portman said, "It's possible we could see legislation there as well," to codify the president's proposal, or something like it. Over all, the pharmaceutical and health products industry gave about $20 million this year to House and Senate campaigns and national political parties, with three-fourths of the money going to Republican candidates and party committees, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Top donors included Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. While those contributions put the industry among the largest donors, the totals actually understate its influence in Washington. In the last six years, according to Public Citizen, the group founded by Ralph Nader, the industry has spent close to $500 million on lobbying, including 600 lobbyists that includes about two dozen former members of Congress. The industry has directed much of its largess to lawmakers who control the fate of legislation affecting prescription drugs. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, received $114,000 in contributions from executives of drug companies and manufacturers of health care products and from industry political action committees through Oct. 21, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The panel's senior Republican, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, who is soon to be chairman, took in about $100,000. In the House, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Billy Tauzin, Republican of Louisiana, received about $100,000. Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, the panel's senior Democrat, received a similar amount. Through Oct. 21, the largest recipient of direct contributions from the pharmaceuticals and health products industry - close to $200,000 - was Representative Nancy L. Johnson, the Connecticut Republican who is chairwoman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health. Mrs. Johnson, who won re-election by defeating Representative Jim Maloney, a Democrat, also benefited from almost $700,000 that United Seniors spent on television advertisements in Hartford in the last two months of the campaign, according to the Wisconsin Advertising Project of the University of Wisconsin in Madison. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/politics/21DRUG.html?ex=1038907251&ei=1&en=b55432190f8d4c8e
Ex-Eli Lilly Executive involved in Insider Trading Scandal
posted by ewing2001 on Wednesday May 07, @05:35AMfrom the dept.
State Subpoenas 30 Business Elite
http://www.indystar.com
May 7, 2003
INDIANAPOLIS -
"...A "who's who" of the Indianapolis business community is being issued subpoenas from state regulators involving the sale of shares in IPALCO Enterprises around the time the utility company was bought by AES Corp. in 2001.
Corporate governance is in the spotlight these days. It's pretty clear that this was an example of bad corporate governance.
They include former IPALCO director Mitch Daniels, a former Eli Lilly and Co. executive who is now President Bush's budget director. Daniels, who sold about $1.45 million in IPALCO stock in January 2001, on Tuesday announced he is resigning the federal post, leading to speculation he will run for governor here.
Other key insiders being issued subpoenas are former IPALCO chairman John Hodowal and former vice chair Ramon Humke. Directors include former Bank One Indiana chairman Joseph D. Barnette Jr. and Anthem Chairman L. Ben Lytle.
About 2,000 IPALCO employees alleged in the suit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis that the insiders "dumped" $71 million worth of stock in the Indianapolis electric utility, in part because they saw trouble ahead with AES' stock price, which later tumbled..."
Note:
Eli Lilly, which made $1.6 million of political contributions in the last election cycle, has strong ties to the Bush administration. Bush's budget director, Mitch Daniels, formerly worked at Lilly; the company's CEO, Sidney Taurel, sits on the Presidential Homeland Security Council; and the president's father, George Bush, sat on Eli Lilly's board of directors.
Eli Lilly runs a monopoly. Narcotics such as cocaine and heroin cannot be manufactured without the precursor chemicals. One of the largest makers of these precursor chemicals is the Eli Lilly Company of Indianapolis, Indiana. The Quayle family is a large stockholder, and George Bush has been on the Board of Directors. Eli Lilly is also the company that first synthesized LSD for the CIA.
After leaving the CIA in 1977, Bush was made director of Eli Lilly by none other than Dan Quayle’s father and family, who owned controlling interest in the Lilly company and the Indianapolis Star. Dan Quayle later acted as go-between for drug kingpins, gun runners, and government officials in the Iran-Contra scandals.
The entire Bush family were large stockholders in Lilly, Abbott, Bristol, and Pfizer, etc. After Bush’s disclosure of assets in 1979, it became public that Bush’s family still had a large interest in Pfizer and substantial amounts of stock in the other aforementioned drug companies.
In fact, Bush actively lobbied illegally both within and without the Administration as Vice President in 1981 to permit drug companies to dump more unwanted, obsolete, or, especially, domestically-banned substances on unsuspecting Third World countries.