Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
03 Oct 19
07:52
Joined:
Date Joined:
20 Sep 11
Prozac mass murders: the truth comes to light...... Oct 2nd. Jon Rappoport
If you were the head of a drug company…
If you had no conscience (the key fact)…
If one of your drugs was causing people to commit murder…
If MANY law suits against your company were waiting to go to trial…
And if the first such trial was convening…
And if the verdict in that case would influence the outcome of all the other law suits…
What would you do?
This is the story of a medical drug, a famous drug company, trust, betrayal, and mass murder.........
After 30 years, the truth is confirmed—Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, secretly paid off plaintiffs in a court case.
The plaintiffs were families of victims killed by a man who went violently crazy after taking Prozac.
The mass shooting took place in 1989, in Kentucky. I covered the case in 1999, by which time the Lilly payoff was an open secret among some lawyers, doctors, and reporters.
But NOW we have confessions from the plaintiffs who took Lilly’s money. In the trial, Eli Lilly was exonerated, absolved of any blame for murders by the jury.
Ahrp.org: “The Louisville Courier Journal reports that thirty years after Joseph Wesbecker went on a deadly shooting rampage in Louisville Kentucky, on September 14, 1989, the families and survivors of his actions have finally come forward to tell the truth. They were plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Eli Lilly because they had reason to believe that Prozac, manufactured by Lilly, had been the trigger that propelled Wesbecker on his violent rampage. Eli Lilly had paid these plaintiffs $20 million in hush money to conceal damaging evidence about Lilly’s culpability in marketing defective, deadly drugs from the jury in the Wesbecker- Eli Lilly trial.”
The Louisville Courier Journal: “On the eve of the jury’s verdict, which absolved Lilly of liability, the company made the secret payment without telling the judge overseeing the case. 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 [had previously] pleaded guilty to 25 criminal misdemeanor counts for failing to report adverse reactions that patients suffered from the drug [Oraflex], and the drug company feared that the Prozac jury would be more inclined to rule against the drugmaker [on Prozac] if it learned of it.”
In other words, the court, which was willing to hear evidence about Lilly’s Oraflex cover-up, never did hear that evidence, which would have alerted the jury that Eli Lilly had a track record of concealing damning truths about its drugs.
AHRP: “Circuit Judge John Potter, the judge in the [Prozac] case, suspected that Lilly bribed plaintiffs and their lawyers before the jury verdict. He uncovered evidence of bribery, and fought Eli Lilly for years but failed to obtain [proof of] the terms of the [Prozac payoff] deal. Lilly succeeded in keeping its criminal action from a judicial proceeding. As is Eli Lilly’s norm and practice; it trashed the judge for his pursuit of the truth.”
The Louisville Courier Journal: “The drugmaker that produces Prozac, the antidepressant that Joseph Wesbecker’s victims blamed for his deadly shooting rampage 30 years ago at Standard Gravure, secretly paid the victims $20 million [in 1994] to help ensure a verdict exonerating the drug company. Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly vigorously shielded the payment for more than two decades, defying a Louisville judge who fought to reveal it because he said it swayed the jury’s verdict.”
“Wesbecker began taking Prozac about a month before his murderous 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, the company that manufactured the popular but controversial drug.”
“On Sept. 14, 1989, Wesbecker, a pressman who had been placed on long-term disability leave for severe mental illness, entered Standard Gravure around 8:30 a.m., carrying a bag full of weapons, including a semiautomatic rifle. Over the next 30 minutes, Wesbecker walked through the building, firing more than 40 rounds at those he encountered before shooting himself in the [head] with a handgun. It is the worst mass shooting in Kentucky’s history.”
You need to understand that a diagnosis of “severe mental illness” is a far cry from “killing eight people and wounding 12 people.” The two factors are not automatically connected as cause and effect. If they were, we would see a dozen mass murders every day. That said, according to press reports, Wesbecker did have thoughts about committing violence before he was started on Prozac, and even made threats to commit murder. But he didn’t kill anyone until after taking Prozac. And the charge against Prozac was: it was the chemical trigger that pushed Wesbecker over the edge from thought into horrific action. (In that regard, see the brief collection of studies I cite below.) In any event, no argument about motivations for murder justifies Eli Lilly’s $20 million bribe to the plaintiffs. Lilly wanted an absolute slam dunk in the Wesbecker trial, to protect itself from many other law suits where, no doubt, the role of Prozac in suicide and murder was more vivid.
You also need to understand the status of Prozac in the years leading up to the **** 1994 trial in Kentucky that falsely exonerated Eli Lilly. I’m talking about media coverage, psychiatric literature, the court system, and the mindset of the public. Prozac was precariously perched on a ledge. Would it gain universal acceptance? Would it be exposed as a gross danger? At the time of the Kentucky court case, there were roughly 100 other law suits against the drug heading toward trial. The outcome of the Kentucky Wesbecker case would send a powerful signal to lawyers and plaintiffs about the odds of winning judgments against Eli Lilly and Prozac. If Lilly were exonerated in Kentucky (and it was, through payoffs), lawyers in other such cases would back off. They would see little point in trying to prove Prozac was a grave danger.
Here is some background about Prozac in those years. It illustrates how great the threat was to Eli Lilly’s blockbuster antidepressant then—and, by comparison, how little any concern is allowed into the public arena now.
On February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.” She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”
Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”
In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”
Breggin also cites a troubling study from the February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) which reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment. The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding ‘suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”
An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that, in five examined cases, people on Prozac developed what is called akathisia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Breggin comments that akathisia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathisia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathisia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”
There are other studies: “Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al. It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.
July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”
September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.
(What is true about Prozac is true about Paxil or Zoloft or any of the other SSRI antidepressants. And be warned: suddenly withdrawing from any psychiatric drug can be extremely dangerous to the patient. Gradual withdrawal must be done under the supervision of a professional who understands exactly what he/she is doing.)
So—A drug company, Eli Lilly; a drug, Prozac; mass murder; trust; betrayal.
A final piece of the truth now comes to light in the Wesbecker case.
In this sordid drama, there are many other actors. I’ve covered them in other articles. But I can’t let this article end without mentioning the FDA, the sole federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs as safe and effective for public use. That agency went rogue a long, long time ago. It takes no responsibility for launching killer chemicals on the population. It operates as a colluding partner with the pharmaceutical industry. Trusting the FDA to protect people from drugs such as Prozac is like trusting a PR company, hired to promote war, to maintain the peace.
Notes about Jon R.
Jon Rappoport has worked as a free-lance investigative reporter for over 30 years.
He is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX.
He has written articles on politics, health, media, culture and art for LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, Village Voice, Nexus, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.
In 1982, the LA Weekly submitted his name for a Pulitzer prize, for his interview with the president of El Salvador University, where the military had taken over the campus.
Jon has hosted, produced, and written radio programs and segments in Los Angeles and Las Vegas (KPFK, KLAV). He has appeared as a guest on over 200 radio and television programs, including ABC's Nightline, Tony Brown's Journal (PBS), and Hard Copy.
In 1994, Jon ran for a seat in the US Congress from the 29th district in Los Angeles. After six months of campaigning, on a very small budget, he garnered 20 percent of the vote running against an incumbent who had occupied his seat for 20 years.
In 1996, Jon started The Great Boycott, against eight corporate chemical giants: Monsanto, Dow, Du Pont, Bayer, Hoechst, Rhone-Poulenc, Imperial Chemical Industries, and Ciba-Geigy. The Boycott continues to operate today.
Jon has lectured extensively all over the US on the question: Who runs the world and what can we do about it?
Since 2000, Jon has operated largely away from the mainstream because, as he puts it, "My research was not friendly to the conventional media."
Over the last 30 years, Jon's independent research has encompassed such areas as: deep politics, conspiracies, alternative health, the potential of the human imagination, mind control, the medical cartel, symbology, and solutions to the takeover of the planet by hidden elites.
He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power.
A painter, Jon's work has been shown in galleries in Los Angeles and New York. His poetry has been published by The Massachusetts Review.
He is a graduate of Amherst College (BA, Philosophy), and lives with his wife, Laura, in San Diego.
There4 i think you have to agree he is no mug or fly by night internet cowboy
Another episode in history which shows the power of the $$$$$$$$$ and that is what it is all about, ALWAYS
Only those that choose not to see it DONT SEE IT
If you were the head of a drug company…
If you had no conscience (the key fact)…
If one of your drugs was causing people to commit murder…
If MANY law suits against your company were waiting to go to trial…
And if the first such trial was convening…
And if the verdict in that case would influence the outcome of all the other law suits…
What would you do?
This is the story of a medical drug, a famous drug company, trust, betrayal, and mass murder.........
After 30 years, the truth is confirmed—Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, secretly paid off plaintiffs in a court case.
The plaintiffs were families of victims killed by a man who went violently crazy after taking Prozac.
The mass shooting took place in 1989, in Kentucky. I covered the case in 1999, by which time the Lilly payoff was an open secret among some lawyers, doctors, and reporters.
But NOW we have confessions from the plaintiffs who took Lilly’s money. In the trial, Eli Lilly was exonerated, absolved of any blame for murders by the jury.
Ahrp.org: “The Louisville Courier Journal reports that thirty years after Joseph Wesbecker went on a deadly shooting rampage in Louisville Kentucky, on September 14, 1989, the families and survivors of his actions have finally come forward to tell the truth. They were plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Eli Lilly because they had reason to believe that Prozac, manufactured by Lilly, had been the trigger that propelled Wesbecker on his violent rampage. Eli Lilly had paid these plaintiffs $20 million in hush money to conceal damaging evidence about Lilly’s culpability in marketing defective, deadly drugs from the jury in the Wesbecker- Eli Lilly trial.”
The Louisville Courier Journal: “On the eve of the jury’s verdict, which absolved Lilly of liability, the company made the secret payment without telling the judge overseeing the case. 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 [had previously] pleaded guilty to 25 criminal misdemeanor counts for failing to report adverse reactions that patients suffered from the drug [Oraflex], and the drug company feared that the Prozac jury would be more inclined to rule against the drugmaker [on Prozac] if it learned of it.”
In other words, the court, which was willing to hear evidence about Lilly’s Oraflex cover-up, never did hear that evidence, which would have alerted the jury that Eli Lilly had a track record of concealing damning truths about its drugs.
AHRP: “Circuit Judge John Potter, the judge in the [Prozac] case, suspected that Lilly bribed plaintiffs and their lawyers before the jury verdict. He uncovered evidence of bribery, and fought Eli Lilly for years but failed to obtain [proof of] the terms of the [Prozac payoff] deal. Lilly succeeded in keeping its criminal action from a judicial proceeding. As is Eli Lilly’s norm and practice; it trashed the judge for his pursuit of the truth.”
The Louisville Courier Journal: “The drugmaker that produces Prozac, the antidepressant that Joseph Wesbecker’s victims blamed for his deadly shooting rampage 30 years ago at Standard Gravure, secretly paid the victims $20 million [in 1994] to help ensure a verdict exonerating the drug company. Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly vigorously shielded the payment for more than two decades, defying a Louisville judge who fought to reveal it because he said it swayed the jury’s verdict.”
“Wesbecker began taking Prozac about a month before his murderous 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, the company that manufactured the popular but controversial drug.”
“On Sept. 14, 1989, Wesbecker, a pressman who had been placed on long-term disability leave for severe mental illness, entered Standard Gravure around 8:30 a.m., carrying a bag full of weapons, including a semiautomatic rifle. Over the next 30 minutes, Wesbecker walked through the building, firing more than 40 rounds at those he encountered before shooting himself in the [head] with a handgun. It is the worst mass shooting in Kentucky’s history.”
You need to understand that a diagnosis of “severe mental illness” is a far cry from “killing eight people and wounding 12 people.” The two factors are not automatically connected as cause and effect. If they were, we would see a dozen mass murders every day. That said, according to press reports, Wesbecker did have thoughts about committing violence before he was started on Prozac, and even made threats to commit murder. But he didn’t kill anyone until after taking Prozac. And the charge against Prozac was: it was the chemical trigger that pushed Wesbecker over the edge from thought into horrific action. (In that regard, see the brief collection of studies I cite below.) In any event, no argument about motivations for murder justifies Eli Lilly’s $20 million bribe to the plaintiffs. Lilly wanted an absolute slam dunk in the Wesbecker trial, to protect itself from many other law suits where, no doubt, the role of Prozac in suicide and murder was more vivid.
You also need to understand the status of Prozac in the years leading up to the **** 1994 trial in Kentucky that falsely exonerated Eli Lilly. I’m talking about media coverage, psychiatric literature, the court system, and the mindset of the public. Prozac was precariously perched on a ledge. Would it gain universal acceptance? Would it be exposed as a gross danger? At the time of the Kentucky court case, there were roughly 100 other law suits against the drug heading toward trial. The outcome of the Kentucky Wesbecker case would send a powerful signal to lawyers and plaintiffs about the odds of winning judgments against Eli Lilly and Prozac. If Lilly were exonerated in Kentucky (and it was, through payoffs), lawyers in other such cases would back off. They would see little point in trying to prove Prozac was a grave danger.
Here is some background about Prozac in those years. It illustrates how great the threat was to Eli Lilly’s blockbuster antidepressant then—and, by comparison, how little any concern is allowed into the public arena now.
On February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.” She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”
Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”
In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”
Breggin also cites a troubling study from the February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) which reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment. The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding ‘suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”
An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that, in five examined cases, people on Prozac developed what is called akathisia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Breggin comments that akathisia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathisia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathisia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”
There are other studies: “Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al. It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.
July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”
September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.
(What is true about Prozac is true about Paxil or Zoloft or any of the other SSRI antidepressants. And be warned: suddenly withdrawing from any psychiatric drug can be extremely dangerous to the patient. Gradual withdrawal must be done under the supervision of a professional who understands exactly what he/she is doing.)
So—A drug company, Eli Lilly; a drug, Prozac; mass murder; trust; betrayal.
A final piece of the truth now comes to light in the Wesbecker case.
In this sordid drama, there are many other actors. I’ve covered them in other articles. But I can’t let this article end without mentioning the FDA, the sole federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs as safe and effective for public use. That agency went rogue a long, long time ago. It takes no responsibility for launching killer chemicals on the population. It operates as a colluding partner with the pharmaceutical industry. Trusting the FDA to protect people from drugs such as Prozac is like trusting a PR company, hired to promote war, to maintain the peace.
Notes about Jon R.
Jon Rappoport has worked as a free-lance investigative reporter for over 30 years.
He is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX.
He has written articles on politics, health, media, culture and art for LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, Village Voice, Nexus, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.
In 1982, the LA Weekly submitted his name for a Pulitzer prize, for his interview with the president of El Salvador University, where the military had taken over the campus.
Jon has hosted, produced, and written radio programs and segments in Los Angeles and Las Vegas (KPFK, KLAV). He has appeared as a guest on over 200 radio and television programs, including ABC's Nightline, Tony Brown's Journal (PBS), and Hard Copy.
In 1994, Jon ran for a seat in the US Congress from the 29th district in Los Angeles. After six months of campaigning, on a very small budget, he garnered 20 percent of the vote running against an incumbent who had occupied his seat for 20 years.
In 1996, Jon started The Great Boycott, against eight corporate chemical giants: Monsanto, Dow, Du Pont, Bayer, Hoechst, Rhone-Poulenc, Imperial Chemical Industries, and Ciba-Geigy. The Boycott continues to operate today.
Jon has lectured extensively all over the US on the question: Who runs the world and what can we do about it?
Since 2000, Jon has operated largely away from the mainstream because, as he puts it, "My research was not friendly to the conventional media."
Over the last 30 years, Jon's independent research has encompassed such areas as: deep politics, conspiracies, alternative health, the potential of the human imagination, mind control, the medical cartel, symbology, and solutions to the takeover of the planet by hidden elites.
He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power.
A painter, Jon's work has been shown in galleries in Los Angeles and New York. His poetry has been published by The Massachusetts Review.
He is a graduate of Amherst College (BA, Philosophy), and lives with his wife, Laura, in San Diego.
There4 i think you have to agree he is no mug or fly by night internet cowboy
Another episode in history which shows the power of the $$$$$$$$$ and that is what it is all about, ALWAYS
Only those that choose not to see it DONT SEE IT
Show More
There is a great paragraph in there which tells us so much about everything really,
In this sordid drama, there are many other actors. I’ve covered them in other articles. But I can’t let this article end without mentioning the FDA, the sole federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs as safe and effective for public use. That agency went rogue a long, long time ago. It takes no responsibility for launching killer chemicals on the population. It operates as a colluding partner with the pharmaceutical industry. Trusting the FDA to protect people from drugs such as Prozac is like trusting a PR company, hired to promote war, to maintain the peace.
Amen to that Jon boy
In this sordid drama, there are many other actors. I’ve covered them in other articles. But I can’t let this article end without mentioning the FDA, the sole federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs as safe and effective for public use. That agency went rogue a long, long time ago. It takes no responsibility for launching killer chemicals on the population. It operates as a colluding partner with the pharmaceutical industry. Trusting the FDA to protect people from drugs such as Prozac is like trusting a PR company, hired to promote war, to maintain the peace.
Amen to that Jon boy
What a depressing thread. I need something to cheer me up after reading that.
John,lets face it,the elite hate the human race,as long as it makes them money they don't care how many die,no empathy!
We need to spread awareness about this. People don't know whats in the medicine they are taking. The elite are going to make us infertile in about 2-3 generations.
And if you're wondering how they are going to keep a steady population after that, its CLONING.
When prozac was introduced in the 1990s it was dubbed the sunshine drug along with other SSRI ANTI -DEPRESANTS , yes some people have side effects and bad reactions to them , they were labelled non -addictive but people trying to come off them experienced bad withdrawals , court action was taken but lawyers managed to get the verdict that people on a stable dose were not addicted merely dependent this was a big result for the the drug companies , having said all of that some people benefit from them
In general, people are at the mercy of medical professions.
And quite frankly if you suffer from one of the common chronic complaints, you're likely to take it to your grave.
Anyone who thinks their GP sets out to cure anything has got a shock coming.
Drug therapy is merely one branch of medicine, and very limited in curing anything except infections.
We're being used and misinformed at the same time.
And quite frankly if you suffer from one of the common chronic complaints, you're likely to take it to your grave.
Anyone who thinks their GP sets out to cure anything has got a shock coming.
Drug therapy is merely one branch of medicine, and very limited in curing anything except infections.
We're being used and misinformed at the same time.
The first thing to understand is that most people are liars.
And if they're promoting something they've invested millions of pounds in, then any information they release has to be highly suspect.
And if they're promoting something they've invested millions of pounds in, then any information they release has to be highly suspect.
Cigarette manufacturers kill 10% of their customers. I've never heard anyone say its a conspiracy against humans.
The amount of salt and sugar we consume in processed foods is staggering.
Alcohol is addictive but we make it a social necessity.
But you make one drug that doesn't do what you say its supposed to do and the people go crazy.
The amount of salt and sugar we consume in processed foods is staggering.
Alcohol is addictive but we make it a social necessity.
But you make one drug that doesn't do what you say its supposed to do and the people go crazy.
What you mention there dt are avoidable personal choices which is a big difference from being supposedly treat for an illness by professionals paid to cure sick people that get alot of personal trust from people under the proviso that the best intentions of the patient are foremost in their treatment and care.
When we know now that on a majority scale that isn't the case,misinformation in media,poor advice from healthcare professionals,misleading causes of illness being told and a reliance on drugs over nutrition with a view to treat symptoms and not causes are all part of the global scam.
When we know now that on a majority scale that isn't the case,misinformation in media,poor advice from healthcare professionals,misleading causes of illness being told and a reliance on drugs over nutrition with a view to treat symptoms and not causes are all part of the global scam.
Most peope have heard how the government legalised an effective treatment for epilepsy made from cannabis, after the outcry from some mothers of ill children.
Yet doctors have been instructed not to prescribe it - so why?
The answer is easy; drugs that don't work have been developed by the drugs industry costing many millions of pounds. These are what doctors will prescribe.
Replacing these drugs with cannabis oil would cost the pharmaceutical companies millions, so they've simply stopped the doctors from switching to cannabis oil.
The last thing they're concerned about is the patient's health.
Still trust your GP?
Yet doctors have been instructed not to prescribe it - so why?
The answer is easy; drugs that don't work have been developed by the drugs industry costing many millions of pounds. These are what doctors will prescribe.
Replacing these drugs with cannabis oil would cost the pharmaceutical companies millions, so they've simply stopped the doctors from switching to cannabis oil.
The last thing they're concerned about is the patient's health.
Still trust your GP?
My brother is a personal trainer who occasionally gets people referred by doctors with weight/health issues and some of the advice that has been given from GPs mouths is beyond ludicrous.
One of the common advices they give to middle aged overweight people who've done little or no exercise in their life in this country is at least 80 minutes of cardiovascular training per day.
A 40 odd year old came to my brother for help when she'd been back and forth to the doctors who had her stotting around the roads for 80-90 minutes per day to little affect on her weight and all the aches and pains under the sun.
He told her that he's been training solid for 20 odd years and has never did anywhere near that much cardio in fact barring Marathon runners there aren't any athletes which do this much cardio let alone an unfit unhealthy middle aged womaam.
One of the common advices they give to middle aged overweight people who've done little or no exercise in their life in this country is at least 80 minutes of cardiovascular training per day.
A 40 odd year old came to my brother for help when she'd been back and forth to the doctors who had her stotting around the roads for 80-90 minutes per day to little affect on her weight and all the aches and pains under the sun.
He told her that he's been training solid for 20 odd years and has never did anywhere near that much cardio in fact barring Marathon runners there aren't any athletes which do this much cardio let alone an unfit unhealthy middle aged womaam.
Dr C this Cannabis oil is the next big health scam as it's being sold to the public in various forms,oils,capsules,sweets you name it but the doses people pay top dollar for are way below the pharmaceutical levels of efficacy so the doses people are consuming are having little to no effect despite the claims.
The list is endless
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=cannabis+oil+for+sale
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=cannabis+oil+for+sale
Whilst i believe big pharma are interested in big profits i do believe some drugs can help some people , but it should be used maybe a lesser basis , a combination of drugs and some other therapy or dietary changes
Walk into your doctor's surgery, and you're met by a friendly educated professional who is only there to help.
Wrong.
''So we'll start by taking your blood pressure.
Now let's see if we can get a high enough reading to put justify putting you on pills.''
You've just walked in so before you've had time to settle, I'll ask you a few complicated questions to keep you on the boil. Bingo! That's high enough - take these.
You come back in a few months time with gout caused by the pills.
Right here's allopurinol for the gout.
Your cholesterol is okay by the way, but I note a history of heart disease in your family, so I'll put you on statins as well.
Come back next month with indigestion caused by the tablets you're taking.
Oh dear, I'd better give you Zantac for the indigestion.
''You are in state aren't you?''
YOU ARE NOW!
Wrong.
''So we'll start by taking your blood pressure.
Now let's see if we can get a high enough reading to put justify putting you on pills.''
You've just walked in so before you've had time to settle, I'll ask you a few complicated questions to keep you on the boil. Bingo! That's high enough - take these.
You come back in a few months time with gout caused by the pills.
Right here's allopurinol for the gout.
Your cholesterol is okay by the way, but I note a history of heart disease in your family, so I'll put you on statins as well.
Come back next month with indigestion caused by the tablets you're taking.
Oh dear, I'd better give you Zantac for the indigestion.
''You are in state aren't you?''
YOU ARE NOW!
By some of my older family's experience sounds about right,my dad despite being active his whole life and still is at 67 got on his 3 blood pressure meds after he innocently went for treatment after being bitten by a horsefly which he had a reaction to.
You've just walked in so before you've had time to settle, I'll ask you a few complicated questions to keep you on the boil. Bingo! That's high enough - take these.
The home blood pressure readings are always far lower in his case
The home blood pressure readings are always far lower in his case
I had one really bad year at University. Didn't give any exams. Health insurance told me your insurance just doubled because you should have been done by now. I had a legal right to extension if I could prove sickness and I knew that well before my insurance increased.
Two visits to a neurologist and I was diagnosed with chronic depression and eating disorder. Told the doctor to write a report that I could give to my Hausarzt(GP). I sent that report straight to the health insurance and had it extended.
Before that I went to the Hausarzt and told him exactly the same things. He took my blood, said I had thyroid issue and put me on Thyroxin.
Before that I was at an Internist who took the same tests and told me I was fine and it was just stress at University.
Three different doctors and all had something different for me. The neurologist worked for me because his diagnosis gave me the excuse I needed to have missed a year at Uni. Im pretty sure if I had gone to a surgeon, he would have offered me some sort of surgery to rid me of my troubles(which didn't really exist).
The notion that the medical profession needs to have integrity is there because people like to think their doctor is there to help them. But he's just selling his skill against money. The smarter ones have deals with the nearest pharmacy giving them and the medicine makers a cut. The smartest ones have their own pharmacy. Its a business. If doctors started prescribing tea instead of the $50 tablet, how many businesses will be affected?
Two visits to a neurologist and I was diagnosed with chronic depression and eating disorder. Told the doctor to write a report that I could give to my Hausarzt(GP). I sent that report straight to the health insurance and had it extended.
Before that I went to the Hausarzt and told him exactly the same things. He took my blood, said I had thyroid issue and put me on Thyroxin.
Before that I was at an Internist who took the same tests and told me I was fine and it was just stress at University.
Three different doctors and all had something different for me. The neurologist worked for me because his diagnosis gave me the excuse I needed to have missed a year at Uni. Im pretty sure if I had gone to a surgeon, he would have offered me some sort of surgery to rid me of my troubles(which didn't really exist).
The notion that the medical profession needs to have integrity is there because people like to think their doctor is there to help them. But he's just selling his skill against money. The smarter ones have deals with the nearest pharmacy giving them and the medicine makers a cut. The smartest ones have their own pharmacy. Its a business. If doctors started prescribing tea instead of the $50 tablet, how many businesses will be affected?
I'd advise reading up on the treatment of blood pressure Denzil.
Your old man should only be treated down to just below 140/90 using drugs if he's under 80.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/high-blood-pressure-hypertension/treatment/
Using drugs to bring it down lower than this, will start to increase the risks of heart disease and strokes. And the side effects are always a problem anyway.
Of course, far lower BP without drugs is highly desirable.
Myself, unless I'd had a heart attack or stroke or got really high blood pressure way above that, I wouldn't take the dope.
There's no need to anyway in most cases, all you need is to go on a starch based diet and to cut out the drink.
Your old man should only be treated down to just below 140/90 using drugs if he's under 80.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/high-blood-pressure-hypertension/treatment/
Using drugs to bring it down lower than this, will start to increase the risks of heart disease and strokes. And the side effects are always a problem anyway.
Of course, far lower BP without drugs is highly desirable.
Myself, unless I'd had a heart attack or stroke or got really high blood pressure way above that, I wouldn't take the dope.
There's no need to anyway in most cases, all you need is to go on a starch based diet and to cut out the drink.
Many doctors routinely treat BP way below the stipulated targets.
They're unwittingly doing more harm than good.
Never trust a doctor with drugs. Do your own research.
They're unwittingly doing more harm than good.
Never trust a doctor with drugs. Do your own research.
wasnt it about 15 years ago they changed the blood presure target from 140-90 to 120-80 , i dont if there was any evidence to support this , was oit because of an increase in cardiovascular related ilness
The ideal BP is 110/70.
But not if you're taking drugs to bring it down
Click that link in my last post anxious.
The target BP if you're taking drugs to lower BP is 140/90, if your under 80.
But not if you're taking drugs to bring it down
Click that link in my last post anxious.
The target BP if you're taking drugs to lower BP is 140/90, if your under 80.
Cheers Dr C will have a look,I don't hold too much hope of convincing my old man as he is ignorant to these sorts of things and will take the word of anyone who he thinks is better than him/us over his family telling some truths for his benefit.
This year his brother in law who basically brought him up died riddled with cancer after a few years of progressive dementia which obviously knocked my old man for 6.
This guy was a pro am sprinter for years of normal weight still active but went downhill quickly when the dementia kicked in.
So we got onto talking and I told him basically it's nearly all diet and showed him the video of Dr Neale Barnard talking about dementia and his experience with his father,the causes and how to prevent it etc.
and he was into cutting back on the bacon and sausages adding some fruits into his diet as he didn't want to go that way etc. Nearly 5 months later nothing's changed as he feels fine and can still do practically whatever he wants,I explained that these things build up over decades but as said he's ignorant.
This year his brother in law who basically brought him up died riddled with cancer after a few years of progressive dementia which obviously knocked my old man for 6.
This guy was a pro am sprinter for years of normal weight still active but went downhill quickly when the dementia kicked in.
So we got onto talking and I told him basically it's nearly all diet and showed him the video of Dr Neale Barnard talking about dementia and his experience with his father,the causes and how to prevent it etc.
and he was into cutting back on the bacon and sausages adding some fruits into his diet as he didn't want to go that way etc. Nearly 5 months later nothing's changed as he feels fine and can still do practically whatever he wants,I explained that these things build up over decades but as said he's ignorant.
Oct 3, 2019 -- 12:58PM, detraveller wrote:
How does one do their own research?
?
Having read that I'd have thought he should've been in the lifestyle changes bracket rather than meds,but whether he'd listen is another thing altogether.
You can Google it anxious and detraveller.
The NHS Choices website is a good place to start. The link above
The American Journal of Medicine is another.
https://www.amjmed.com/
The NHS Choices website is a good place to start. The link above
The American Journal of Medicine is another.
https://www.amjmed.com/
CBT seems to be what's prescribed up here these days before the docs start handing out any uppers.
https://www.nhstayside.scot.nhs.uk/BeatingtheBlues/index.htm
https://www.nhstayside.scot.nhs.uk/BeatingtheBlues/index.htm
Oct 3, 2019 -- 1:29PM, Dr Crippen wrote:
You can Google it anxious and detraveller.The NHS Choices website is a good place to start. The link aboveThe American Journal of Medicine is another. https://www.amjmed.com/
If you are telling us not to trust the doctors, google, NHS and AJM don't sound like any credible alternatives to me.
Lots of people have high blood pressure. Lots have high cholestrerol.
I am a believer the human body can generally cope with this.
With regard to cholesterol Doctors are prescribing statins, which, could have a serious effect on the quality of life. I would rather live a good life even if it is shorter, however, there is no guarantee that statins prolong your life. There is no gain by not dying from a heart attack or stroke if you die of something else!
Better let your old man enjoy his life. Keep him active, exercising and more importantly engaging his mind at his age. Make the old bstard walk to the pub to meet you!
I am a believer the human body can generally cope with this.
With regard to cholesterol Doctors are prescribing statins, which, could have a serious effect on the quality of life. I would rather live a good life even if it is shorter, however, there is no guarantee that statins prolong your life. There is no gain by not dying from a heart attack or stroke if you die of something else!
Better let your old man enjoy his life. Keep him active, exercising and more importantly engaging his mind at his age. Make the old bstard walk to the pub to meet you!
Yes have seen the link regarding nhs blood pressure , but i was making the point about the target being 140-90 to 120 over 80 is there evidence thatthis prevents cardovascular problems
i mean your blood pressure goes up and down all day doesnt it
John Bergmann you tube is an interesting alternative doctor
What's normal resting rate? I'm 117/87 & 66bpm at the mo. 70/40's also mentioned on my wee thingummybob.
That's pretty good trilby I judge my recovery to be fine if the hr is about 60bpm when relaxed,the range is 50-80.
Athletes can go far lower some endurance athletes have resting rates in the 30s but for mortals around 60-70 is fine for most people and it fluctuates depending on food,exercise,stress,hydration,illness etc.
Lower blood pressure is usually a good sign, but in older people it's usually because their hearts are weaker.
Which can catch many doctors out if they're not paying attention.
They still have the old timers taking BP tablets for ages after they don't need them.
It don't bear thinking about really, but it happens just the same.
Which can catch many doctors out if they're not paying attention.
They still have the old timers taking BP tablets for ages after they don't need them.
It don't bear thinking about really, but it happens just the same.
No wonder dementia is so common.
I wonder how much of it is caused by prescription drugs?
I wonder how much of it is caused by prescription drugs?
These are the people we need to listen to.
This one is a cardiologist, it's someone like him who'll cut you open and do your bypass or put in a stent.
If he doesn't know what he's talking about with heart disease then no one does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqKNfyUPzoU
This one is a cardiologist, it's someone like him who'll cut you open and do your bypass or put in a stent.
If he doesn't know what he's talking about with heart disease then no one does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqKNfyUPzoU
Top man that is the best video I've seen on heart disease.
Still is now don't know if you've got Netflix but What The Health and Knives Over Forks are ones to watch,on Knives Over Forks he and your old pal Dr Campbell feature heavily.
Genuine education that presentation it's everything you're not told.
Good points further down as well Dr C. No huge prophets to be made out of natural produce 
ALWAYS ABOUT THE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
ALWAYS ABOUT THE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yes I have got access to Netflix Denzil.
Thanks for telling me that.
Thanks for telling me that.
Of course this Prozac scandal is just the latest in a series.
Last week or so ago, it was Zantac being banned all over the place because it's been linked it to cancer.
Now this is staggering, because Zantac (Ranitidine) is what they prescribe when the cocktail of drugs you are taking is giving you heartburn or indigestion.
It's given to help manage one of the side effects of the toxic drugs you are swallowing.
And also very widely used in the treatment of stomach acid problems.
But this is happening all the time with prescription drugs.
There's nothing unusual in drugs having to be withdrawn because they're harming people or even killing them.
Isn't our health service wonderful?
Last week or so ago, it was Zantac being banned all over the place because it's been linked it to cancer.
Now this is staggering, because Zantac (Ranitidine) is what they prescribe when the cocktail of drugs you are taking is giving you heartburn or indigestion.
It's given to help manage one of the side effects of the toxic drugs you are swallowing.
And also very widely used in the treatment of stomach acid problems.
But this is happening all the time with prescription drugs.
There's nothing unusual in drugs having to be withdrawn because they're harming people or even killing them.
Isn't our health service wonderful?
I spent 6 years on it ,not because I was ill ,but because I was told my thought control was wrong, I climbed trees ,jumped in rivers , ..
Oct 4, 2019 -- 3:13PM, conditor wrote:
I spent 6 years on it ,not because I was ill ,but because I was told my thought control was wrong, I climbed trees ,jumped in rivers , ..
What've they got you on now?
I am not sure he was having a dig there conditor m8
Was a joke you fed a straight line no offence intended
Reading his posts lower down he think he is genuinely interested but i could be mistaken.
No one has to fall out here. Most come to help each other although you wouldnt really believe that would you 
This is the problem when you can't see someone's face
This is interesting:
List of withdrawn drugs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs
This is not a complete list, but there are still about 170 here going back to the 60s.
It says some were withdrawn for commercial reasons, but there are very few. The vast majority were withdrawn for adverse effects.
List of withdrawn drugs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs
This is not a complete list, but there are still about 170 here going back to the 60s.
It says some were withdrawn for commercial reasons, but there are very few. The vast majority were withdrawn for adverse effects.
What we must remember is that most drugs used now come with adverse effects.
Someone has decided that the risks are justified; unfortunately a financial interest is usually present in that decision.
Which explains why many drugs are given such a good run before they are withdrawn.
What is the next commonly prescribed drug to be pulled I wonder?
Someone has decided that the risks are justified; unfortunately a financial interest is usually present in that decision.
Which explains why many drugs are given such a good run before they are withdrawn.
What is the next commonly prescribed drug to be pulled I wonder?
https://amarketnews.com/2019/11/28/jennifer-jaynes-death-obituary/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
This beautiful woman, Jennifer Jaynes, was a bestselling author who wrote about corruption inside the vaccine industry , and the author of another book titled “MALICE” about Dr. Daniel Winters.
Tragic this and as is the norm these days i am left simply shaking my head on what goes on in this world.
I have read MALICE and it certainly tells a tale which would scare big pharma to death.
RIP JJ
This beautiful woman, Jennifer Jaynes, was a bestselling author who wrote about corruption inside the vaccine industry , and the author of another book titled “MALICE” about Dr. Daniel Winters.
Tragic this and as is the norm these days i am left simply shaking my head on what goes on in this world.
I have read MALICE and it certainly tells a tale which would scare big pharma to death.
RIP JJ
Standard TWO gunshot wounds to her head, SUICIDE. OMFG !
Seems that there are conflicting reports about how she died. Never sure what to believe these days. Strange how i have only just come across this story. 
When nothing else matters than owning the world,having everything at the cost of everyone,then anything that might stop that has to be rid of John
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539