Mark Heyrman

May 20, 2004

I can see how many different groups and people can have connections to big

pharma,

there is a lot of money in the stock. I would imagine there are lots of people

unknowingly promoting big pharma through the stock market.

Jim

Eli Lilly, Zyprexa, & the Bush Family

The diseasing of our malaise

By Bruce Levine

Back to article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More than one journalist has uncovered corrupt connections between the Bush

Family, psychiatry, and Eli Lilly & Company, the giant pharmaceutical

corporation. While previous Lillygates have been more colorful, Lilly's soaking

state Medicaid programs with Zyprexa-its blockbuster, antipsychotic drug-may

pack the greatest financial wallop. Worldwide in 2003, Zyprexa grossed $4.28

billion, accounting for slightly more than one-third of Lilly's total sales. In

the United States in 2003, Zyprexa grossed $2.63 billion, 70 percent of that

attributable to government agencies, mostly Medicaid.

Historically, the exposure of any single Lilly machination-though sometimes

disrupting it-has not weakened the Bush-psychiatry-Lilly relationship. In the

last decade, some of the more widely reported Eli Lilly intrigues include:

a.. Influencing the Homeland Security Act to protect itself from lawsuits

b.. Accessing confidential patient records for a Prozac sample mailing

c.. Rigging the Wesbecker Prozac-violence trial

A sample of those who have been on the Eli Lilly payroll includes:

a.. Former President Herbert Bush (one-time member of the Eli

Lilly board of directors)

b.. Former CEO of Enron, Ken Lay (one-time member of the Eli Lilly board of

directors)

c.. W. Bush's former director of Management and Budget, Mitch s

(a former Eli Lilly vice president)

d.. W. Bush's Homeland Security Advisory Council member, Sidney

Taurel (current CEO of Eli Lilly)

e.. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (a recipient of Eli Lilly

funding)

In 2002, British and Japanese regulatory agencies warned that Zyprexa may be

linked to diabetes, but even after the FDA issued a similar warning in 2003,

Lilly's Zyprexa train was not derailed, as Zyprexa posted a 16 percent gain over

2002. The growth of Zyprexa has become especially vital to Lilly because

Prozac-Lilly's best-known product, which once annually grossed over $2

billion-having lost its patent protection, continues its rapid decline, down to

$645.1 million in 2003.

At the same time regulatory agencies were warning of Zyprexa's possible

linkage to diabetes, Lilly's second most lucrative product line was its diabetes

treatment drugs (including Actos, Humulin, and Humalog), which collectively

grossed $2.51 billion in 2003. Lilly's profits on diabetes drugs and the

possible linkage between diabetes and Zyprexa is not, however, the most recent

Lillygate that Gardiner broke about Zyprexa in the New York Times on

December 18, 2003.

Zyprexa costs approximately twice as much as similar drugs and reported

that state Medicaid programs-going in the red in part because of Zyprexa- are

attempting to exclude it in favor of similar, less expensive drugs.

focused on the Kentucky Medicaid program, which had a $230 million deficit in

2002, with Zyprexa being its single largest drug expense at $36 million. When

Kentucky's Medicaid program attempted to exclude it from its list of preferred

medications, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) fought back. The

nonprofit NAMI-ostensibly a consumer organization-bused protesters to hearings,

placed full-page ads in newspapers, and sent faxes to state officials. What NAMI

did not say at the time was that the buses, ads, and faxes were paid for by Eli

Lilly.

Ken Silverstein, in Mother in 1999, reported that NAMI took $11.7

million from drug companies over a three and a half year period from 1996

through 1999, with the largest donor being Eli Lilly, which provided $2.87

million. Eli Lilly's funding also included loaning NAMI a Lilly executive, who

worked at NAMI headquarters, but whose salary was paid for by Lilly. Though

NAMI's linkage to Lilly is a scandal to psychiatric survivors-whose journal

MindFreedom published copies of Big Pharma checks to NAMI-the story didn't have

the widespread shock value that would elevate it to Lillygate status.

In 2002, Eli Lilly flexed its muscles at the highest level of the U.S.

government in an audacious Lillygate. The event was the signing of the Homeland

Security Act, praised by President W. Bush as a " heroic action " that

demonstrated " the resolve of this great nation to defend our freedom, our

security and our way of life. " Soon after the Act was signed, New York Times

columnist Bob Herbert discovered what had been slipped into the Act at the last

minute and on November 25, 2002, he wrote, " Buried in this massive bill, snuck

into it in the dark of night by persons unknown.was a provision

that-incredibly-will protect Eli Lilly and a few other big pharmaceutical

outfits from lawsuits by parents who believe their children were harmed by

thimerosal. "

Thimerosal is a preservative that contains mercury and is used by Eli Lilly

and others in vaccines. In 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the

Public Health Service urged vaccine makers to stop using mercury-based

preservatives. In 2001 the Institute of Medicine concluded that the link between

autism and thimerosal was " biologically plausible. " By 2002, thim- erosal

lawsuits against Eli Lilly were progressing through the courts. The punchline of

this Lillygate is that, in June 2002, President W. Bush had appointed Eli

Lilly's CEO, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on his Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Ultimately, even some Republican senators became embarrassed by this Lillygate

and, by early 2003, moderate Republicans and Democrats agreed to repeal this

particular provision in the Homeland Security Act.

In early 2003, " 60 Minutes II " aired a segment on Lillygate and Prozac. With

Prozac's patent having run out, Eli Lilly began marketing a new drug, Prozac

Weekly. Lilly sales representatives in Florida gained access to " confidential "

patient information records and, unsolicited, mailed out free samples of Prozac

Weekly. How did Eli Lilly get its hands on these medical records? Regulations

proposed under Clinton and later implemented under Bush contained a provision

that gave health-care providers the right to sell a person's confidential

medical information to marketing firms and drug companies. Despite many protests

against this proposal, President Bush told Health and Human Services Secretary

Tommy to allow the new rules to go into effect.

Perhps the most cinematic of all Lillygates culminated in 1997. The story

began in 1989 when ph Wesbecker-one month after he began taking

Prozac-opened fire with his AK-47 at his former place of employment, killing 8

and wounding 12 before taking his own life. British journalist Cornwell

covered the Louisville, Kentucky trial for the London Sunday Times Magazine,

ultimately writing a book about it. Cornwell's The Power to Harm (1996) is not

only about a disgruntled employee becoming violent after taking Prozac, but is

also about Eli Lilly's power to corrupt the judicial system.

Victims of ph Wesbecker sued Eli Lilly, claiming that Prozac had pushed

Wesbecker over the edge. The trial took place in 1994, but received scant

attention as the public was transfixed by the O.J. Simpson spectacle. While Eli

Lilly had been settling many Prozac violence cases behind closed doors (more

than 150 Prozac lawsuits had been filed by the end of 1994), it was looking for

a showcase trial that it could win. Although a 1991 FDA " blue ribbon panel "

investigating the association between Prozac and violence had voted not to

require Prozac to have a violence warning label, by 1994 word was getting around

that five of the nine FDA panel doctors had ties to Big Pharma-two of them

serving as lead investigators for Lilly-funded Prozac studies. Thus, with the

FDA panel now known to be tainted, Lilly believed that Wesbecker's history was

such that Prozac would not be seen as the cause of his mayhem.

A crucial component of the victims' attorneys' strategy was for the jury to

hear about Eli Lilly's history of reckless disregard. Victims' attorneys

especially wanted the jury to hear about Lilly's anti- inflamatory drug Oraflex,

introduced in 1982 but taken off the market three months later. A U.S. Justice

Department investigation linked Oraflex to the deaths of more than 100 patients

and concluded that Lilly had misled the FDA. Lilly was charged with 25 counts

related to mislabeling side effects and pled guilty-but in 1985, the Reagan-Bush

Justice Department saw fit to fine them a mere $25,000.

In the Wesbecker trial, Lilly attorneys argued that the Oraflex information

would be prejudicial and Judge Potter initially agreed that the jury

shouldn't hear it. However, when Lilly attorneys used witnesses to make a case

for Eli Lilly's superb system of collecting and analyzing side effects, Judge

Potter said that Lilly had opened the door to evidence to the contrary and ruled

that the Oraflex information would now be permitted. To Judge Potter's

amazement, victims' attorneys never presented the Oraflex evidence and Eli Lilly

won the case. Later, it was discovered that-in a manipulation Cornwell described

as " unprecedented in any Western court " -Eli Lilly cut a secret deal with

victims' attorneys to pay them and their clients not to introduce the Oraflex

evidence. However, Judge Potter smelled a rat and fought for an investigation.

In 1997, Eli Lilly quietly agreed to the verdict being changed from a Lilly

victory to " dismissed as settled. " Looking back further to 1992,

Cockburn, in both the Nation and the New Statesman, was one of the first to

connect the dots between the Bush family and Eli Lilly. After Herbert

Bush left his CIA director post in 1977 and before becoming vice

president under Reagan in 1980, he was on Eli Lilly's board of directors.

As vice president, Bush failed to disclose his Lilly stock and lobbied hard on

behalf of Big Pharma-especially Eli Lilly. For example, Bush sought special tax

breaks from the IRS for Lilly and other pharmaceutical corporations that were

manufacturing in Puerto Rico.

Cockburn also reported on Mitch s, then a vice president at Eli Lilly,

who in 1991 co-chaired a fundraiser that collected $600,000 for the Bush-Quayle

campaign. This is the same Mitch s who in 2001 became W. Bush's

Director of Management and Budget. In June 2003, soon after s departed

from that job, he ran for governor of Indiana (home to Eli Lilly headquarters).

In a piece in the Washington Post called " Delusional on the Deficit, " Senator

Ernest Hollings wrote, " When s left two weeks ago to run for governor of

Indiana, he told the Post that the government is 'fiscally in fine shape.' Good

grief! During his 29-month tenure, he turned a so-called $5.6 trillion, 10-year

budget surplus into a $4 trillion deficit-a mere $10 trillion downswing in just

two years. If this is good fiscal policy, thank heavens s is gone. "

There is one Eli Lilly piece of history so bizarre that if told to many

psychiatrists, one just might get diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and

medicated with Zyrprexa. Former State Department officer Marks in The

Search for the " Manchurian Candidate " : The CIA and Mind Control, The Secret

History of the Behavioral Sciences (1979)-along with the Washington Post (1985)

and the New York Times (1988)-reported an amazing story about the CIA and

psychiatry. A lead player was psychiatrist D. Ewen Cameron, president of the

American Psychiatric Association in 1953. Cameron was curious to discover more

powerful ways to break down patient resistance. Using electroshock, LSD, and

sensory deprivation, he was able to produce severe delirium. Patients often lost

their sense of identity, forgetting their own names and even how to eat. The

CIA, eager to learn more about Cameron's brainwashing techniques, funded him

under a project code-named MKULTRA. According to Marks, Came! r on was part of a

small army of the CIA's LSD-experimenting psychiatrists. Where did the CIA get

its LSD? Marks reports that the CIA had been previously supplied by the Swiss

pharmaceutical corporation Sandoz, but was uncomfortable relying on a foreign

company and so, in 1953, the CIA asked Eli Lilly to make them up a batch of LSD,

which Lilly subsequently donated to the CIA.

The most important story about Eli Lilly is that Lilly's two current

blockbuster psychiatric drugs-Zyprexa and Prozac-are, in scientific terms, of

little value. It is also about how Lilly and the rest of Big Pharma have

corrupted psychiatry, resulting in the increasing medicalization of unhappiness.

This diseasing of our malaise has diverted us from examining the social sources

for our unhappiness-and implementing societal solutions.

Much of the scientific community now acknowledges that the advantage of Prozac

and Prozac-like drugs over a sugar-pill placebo is slight-or as Prevention and

Treatment in 2002 defined it, " clinically negligible. " When Prozac is compared

to an active placebo (one with side effects), then Prozac is shown to have, in

scientific terms, zero value. Moreover, many doctors and researchers now warn us

about the dangers of Prozac. Psychiatrist ph Glenmullen's Prozac Backlash

(2000) documented " neurological disorders including disfiguring facial and whole

body tics indicating potential brain damage...agitation, muscle spasms, and

parkinsonism, " and he stated that debilitating withdrawal occurs in 50 percent

of patients who abruptly come off Prozac and Prozac-like drugs.

Just as Prozac and other SSRI drugs are no longer seen by many scientists as

an improvement in safety and effectiveness over the previous class of

antidepressants, psychiatry's highly touted Zyprexa (and other " atypical

antipsychotics " ) turns out to be no great advance over the older problematic

anti-ps ychotics such as Haldol. Journalist Whitaker, in Mad in America

(2002), details how Eli Lilly's Zyprexa research was biased against the

inexpensive Haldol and how claims of improved safety of Zyprexa are difficult to

justify. Whitaker reports that in drug trials used by FDA reviewers, 22 percent

of Zyprexa patients had " serious " adverse effects as compared to 18 percent of

the Haldol patients.

The United States and other nations that have bought psychiatry's and Big

Pharma's explanations and treatments turn out to have worse results with those

diagnosed as psychotic than those nations who are less enthusiastic about drugs

and who care more about community. In 1992, the World Health Organization (WHO),

in a repeat of earlier findings, found that so-called underdeveloped nations,

which emphasize community support rather than medications, have better results

with those diagnosed as psychotic than nations, which stress drug treatments. In

nations such as the United States, where 61 percent of those diagnosed as

psychotic were maintained on antipsychotic medications, only 37 percent had full

remission. While in India, Nigeria, and Colombia, where only 16 percent of

patients diagnosed as psychotic were maintained on antipsychotic medications,

approximately 63 percent of patients had full remission.

While scientists are not certain about the reasons for these WHO findings, two

possible explanations are: (1) psychiatric drugs, even for the most disturbed

among us, are not the greatest long-term solution; (2) community support,

crucial to our mental health, does not lend itself to commercialization. Thus,

in areas such as mental health, radically commercialized societies such as the

United States are backward societies.

Though some mental health professionals insist that atypical antipsychotics

such as Zyprexa are a great advance, I've met few Zyprexa users who agree. A few

years ago, a well-read man with a professorial manner in his early 60s,

diagnosed by several other doctors as paranoid schizophrenic, came to see me. He

had, at various times, taken several types of antipsychotic drugs and told me,

laughing loudly between each sentence, " I'm crazy on drugs and crazy off drugs.

Haldol helped me sleep and Zyprexa helped me sleep, but I hated the Haldol and

when I was on Zyprexa, I couldn't take a shit for three weeks. Now I don't take

any drugs and I can't sleep and I am a big pain-in-the ass, but I can remember

better what I read. " A few weeks later he told me, " It's all friendly fascism.

Yes, friendly fascism. Was it you who told me-or was it I who told you-that

fascism is about the complete integration of industry and government under a

centralized authority? Friendly fas! c ism, right? I suppose

I say 'friendly fascism' too much, but you're not Ashcroft and neither am I,

right? Don't you agree that it's all friendly fascism? " Then he flashed a giant

smile and said one more time, " Friendly fascism, right, Bruce? "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce E. Levine, PhD, is a psychologist and author of Commonsense Rebellion:

Taking Back Your Life from Drugs, Shrinks, Corporations and a World Gone Crazy

(New York-London: Continuum, 2003).

May 20, 2004