Fwd: Re: Your Petition.

October 27, 2001

Friends & Fellow Warriors,

The enemy has launched their first strike! Gear up

valiant soldiers.. The battle has truly begun!

Israel's Warrior

(Ephesians 6:12)

Note: forwarded message attached.

__________________________________________________

October 27, 2001

Friends & Fellow Warriors,

The enemy has launched their first strike! Gear up

valiant soldiers.. The battle has truly begun!

Israel's Warrior

(Ephesians 6:12)

Note: forwarded message attached.

__________________________________________________

October 27, 2001

>Suicide is far more

> prevalent in untreated depressed people.

That is such bull! Maybe if suicidal people didn't have to be afraid

of being locked up against their will (like I was) they would ask for

help in their time of need!

Also, that religion comment was pretty weak. I am not religious but

I share the same anti-psychiatry standpoint. And to think, once upon

a time I wanted to be a shrink (I have a BA in psychology)! I'm glad

I saw what was really going on in the field and decided not to be a

part of it.

) sam

October 27, 2001

>Suicide is far more

> prevalent in untreated depressed people.

That is such bull! Maybe if suicidal people didn't have to be afraid

of being locked up against their will (like I was) they would ask for

help in their time of need!

Also, that religion comment was pretty weak. I am not religious but

I share the same anti-psychiatry standpoint. And to think, once upon

a time I wanted to be a shrink (I have a BA in psychology)! I'm glad

I saw what was really going on in the field and decided not to be a

part of it.

) sam

October 27, 2001

Hey,

I need an address to send to to respond to this guy or girl. Below is

what I want this L to HEAR. What follows was copied and pasted

from an original doc, 's prefacing statements in his/her

original email in black, my comments in blue, but color distinctions

don't not show up here; 's comments are in quotes with the

response following each. Anyway, want to send this via personal email

to make sure this character gets it. If you have the personal email

or a way to get it personally out, please let me know:

L -

Greetings. My name is Collissa Weber, and I largely helped author the

Prozac petition of which you speak. I believe I am most qualified to

challenge your observations, contentions and admonitions. Being the

professional you state you are, I would beg your indulgence in

actually having the courage and moral fortitude to expose yourself to

that which you have heretofore obviously refused to do: namely, truly

examine documented facts concerning Prozac, the pharm industry, and

other important findings at the expense of challenging your own

obvious comfort zone.

With that said, I will address your correspondence sent to members of

our group concerning our work as cited below:

" Dear israelswarrior:

You appear to have been drawn into the web spun by the Church of

Scientology, who have long told these tales to convince people that

their approach to depression is much better than medical treatment. "

I personally researched EACH AND EVERY contention contained within

the Prozac petition and have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Church

of Scientology, nor would ever want to. I am a practicing Christian -

dedicated to the pursuit of the whole of truth in any arena, which

does NOT include incomplete truth. Truth with omissions, by

definition, constitutes nothing more than a lie. The truth is the

truth, no matter WHO discovers it, religious persuasions outstanding.

It has been known for some time now that the psycho pharm industry

has actively sought to discredit the Church of Scientology precisely

because it has put a good sized dent in the psycho pharm industry's

façade, exposing their outright lies and immoral activities. More

to the point concerning our efforts, quite the opposite appears to be

the case in regards your contentions. It appears that you yourself

have fallen victim to what you assert has influenced our efforts -

namely, you have been unwittingly " drawn into the web spun " by the

entire psycho-pharm industry. Yes, they have done their job very well

- you and those like you are their pawns, legally licensed to push

their wares without FULL knowledge concerning them. Ergo, the

unsuspecting public is left to depend upon its so-called " learned

intermediaries " such as yourself, who really aren't " learned " in any

sense of the word as to the whole truth behind the drugs you push.

You wrote: " The scientific data has been carefully evaluated, and

full evidence shows these attempts to frighten people out of treating

their depression are deeply flawed and extremely biased " Have you

yourself ever proven this data to be flawed, or investigated just WHO

is behind such written-in-stone conclusions? Tell me, DO you read or

do research concerning the drugs you so freely dispense beyond that

which is spoon-fed you by this industry; whose arms reach far and

wide in their dissemination of lies and brilliantly calculated

propaganda as they fill their coffers with the fleeting momentary

monetary procurements they enjoy, attained at the expense of the

blood and incalculable grief of the innocents? Or do you simply " buy "

their rhetoric, write off your patient's drug induced problems to

their " disease process " (which has yet to be proven in any way, shape

or form to this day)? Did you even READ the petition which cites

numerous court documented Eli Lily INTERNAL memos stating they have

knowingly and unconscionably altered THEIR OWN data which has been

PROVEN to lead to human beings' horrific deaths and living nightmares

- facts which fly in the face of what you have the obviously

uneducated, brainwashed audacity to deem " tales " ? Have you ever

warned your patients of the possibility of early suicidal ideation or

tendencies towards violence PROVEN to be elicited by Prozac? Or did

you even know that this is a proven side effect of the drug?

It seems clear you have " swallowed the camel and strained on the

gnat " , 'else you would be aware that medical literature is filled

with articles expressing concern over industry funding of clinical

research, especially in regard the psychoactive drugs. Noting the

difficulty in finding independent reviewers to write about

antidepressants in particular (Prozac being one of many), former New

England Journal of Medicine editor, Marcia Angell, cited the

difficulty to be due to many US psychiatrists' links to companies

selling them. In addition, financial ties between study authors and

sponsoring drug manufacturers have been illustrated to produce more

favorable findings, as opposed to the less favorable study findings

of those who had no such ties to the industry. As reported in an

article by the Medical Journal of Australia, the bottom line is that

companies are seen to be buying the goodwill of researchers, Angell

concurring the practice one " which is a very valuable commodity for

drug and device manufacturing. " US Secretary for Health and Human

Services, Donna Shalala, has stated that academic investigators

increasingly have commercial links with trial sponsors or personally

hold patents over the therapies being trialed, creating major ethical

dilemmas.

Angell contends drug companies increasingly design studies, keep the

data, analyze it and don't even let researchers view it. They make

the decision if they are going to publish the data and sign contracts

with researchers and medical centers, which prohibit them from

publishing their work without prior company permission. She asserts

that during her tenure, more and more company-supported manuscripts

were trying to put a positive spin on what really may have been

negative studies. " The real danger seems to me to be an over-reliance

on drugs, period, " she said. The companies are seeing to it that

research focuses on comparisons of drugs or drugs vs. placebo. Not

only can these practices endanger the health and well being of

consumers, but also, as Angell contends, other practices are

distorting the very practice of medicine and medical education.

Companies present themselves as educating medical students, interns,

house officers and young doctors. Articles from symposiums sponsored

by drug companies have been proven to illustrate more favorable

outcomes than articles without company support. Companies " troll the

halls of the academic medical centers. They give away free samples, "

she says, also giving lectures to students. All these factors

contribute to distortion in what medicine actually is, resulting in

very serious long-range consequences.

According to a USA TODAY study, more than half of the experts who are

hired as advisors to the US government on the safety and efficacy of

drugs have financial ties with the pharmaceutical companies whose

drugs are under review for approval. Once a drug is approved, its

financial success is highly facilitated by a number of factors

including positive publications in prestigious journals. According to

a lengthy report published in the New England Journal of Medicine

(NEJM), (37 references cited), many published research reports tend

to exaggerate a drugs benefits and are published more often than

negative ones. These positive articles in turn influence the

prescribing habits of practitioners. Some are published more than

once, and some badly designed studies are inadequately screened by

journal editors and expert reviewers prior to publication. Research

funded by drug companies may not be published if the results are not

more favorable than a competitive drug. Of the $6 billion in industry

clinical trials funding worldwide, about $3.3 billion goes to

investigators in the United States alone. 70% of US funding comes

from industry rather than from the National Institute of Health

(NIH). Companies have been found to actively suppress negative trial

findings, involving themselves in efforts to downplay, spin, or

change findings. According to Dr. Furberg, Professor of Public Health

at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, who has years of

experience with industry-funded trials, handling the changes a

company wants in trial findings can be tricky for those who need

money for more trials. " Companies can play hardball, and many

investigators can't play hardball back, " he said. A contract research

organization (CRO) executive concurred that obstruction of negative

findings in clinical trials by the pharmaceutical industry is a big

problem, explaining that, " They are nervous if bad data comes out and

gets into the mass media. " Angell agrees that academic researchers who

rely on money from industry to continue their pursuits are being

pressured by drug companies to put a favorable spin on trial results.

And this so-called " carefully evaluated scientific data " , as you put

it, is to be BELIEVED? YOU have been the one to have been duped, my

friend, and very successfully so if you can possibly ignore the

documented evidence of widespread deceit and lies propagated within

and by the pharm industry.

Had you done your homework, perhaps you would have discovered it is

documented that other highly questionable practices aside from

journalistic and research deceit concern the gifts, meals, symposia,

and other perks industry lavishes upon physicians who in turn peddle

their wares. Surely, being one of the brilliantly programmed

" professionals " deceived by industry, you must be familiar with the

so-called medical " presentations " put on by your benefactors.

Attending presentations given by pharmaceutical representatives has

been proven to be associated with non-rational prescribing. In the

US alone, there is one representative for every 15 practicing

physicians. The accuracy of information from representatives is often

contrary to a company's own literature, cited in one of every 10

statements favoring their product. One-fourth of physicians are found

to be unaware that the information is incorrect. Companies relegate

over 50% of their promotional expenditures to pharm representatives,

termed the " stealth bombers " of medicine, their regular contact with

physicians and influence also highly successful in altering

physician's prescribing habits. It is estimated that companies spend

more than $11 billion every year to market and promote drugs, an

estimated $8,000 to $13,000 per physician per year; a portion of this

money not only includes instances of the aforementioned, but also

entertainment provided at educational seminars touting manufacturers'

offerings. Manufacturers also supply physicians with money for books

and medical supplies. Can you disprove any of this? Have you yourself

NOT been influenced and (whether you accept it or not) brainwashed by

these tactics? Drug companies spend about twice as much on marketing

as they do on research and development. Hmmm. Considering they CLEAR

millions AFTER these expenditures, do you suppose their bottom line

might have something to do with serving the replacement theology of

the day - namely, the amassing of the almighty buck at ANY cost -

including deceiving, maiming and killing human beings? You rank among

the fortunate ones at this point in the game - you are merely one of

the deceived who have NOT been on the receiving end of their

destructive offerings. You simply are being drawn into complicity in

their deception by unquestionably dispensing their wares, facilitated

by your gullibility.

You state: " Those like myself who have treated hundreds of people for

depression, often with medications carefully shown to have benefits

far greater than liabilities, can strongly testify to the lives and

families that have been saved, with rare suicide when adequately

treated. " I strongly contend that therein lay the kickers, " have been

saved, with rare suicide when adequately treated. " 1. Saved? Just

what quality of life are they being " saved " to? To what do you

attribute their complaints when they develop other emotional problems

whilst on these medications? Do you simply offer them more and more

drugs to offset the effects you deny are attendant to the ones they

are on, or attribute them to " underlying problems " ? 2. Rare suicide?

Is this simply in your experience, or according to what you have been

led to believe? Do you actually follow up on the final long-term

outcomes of your patients? 3. Adequately treated? Just how do you

address the obvious flip side of the coin of the suicides attendant

with those inadequately treated, i.e., given a drug when it is NOT

necessary? Do you even recognize suicide, or do you perceive

someone's death when on these drugs as " overdose " as cited within so

many Medwatch reports?

You assert: " Suicide is far more prevalent in untreated depressed

people. " I would be greatly interested in where you have THAT

documented finding and who the experts are that cite this so-called

fact.

" The best proven counseling therapies are often inadequate when

depression or anxiety disorders are severe, and combining

counseling with medication has been proven to be significantly more

effective. " Therein lies the seriousness of the situation we all face

in regards these mind-altering drugs - just WHO decides what

constitutes " severe " , and by what criteria? Primary Care Mds are

dispensing antidepressants for those who don't even fit a few of the

criteria establishing true, severe clinical depression and even then,

there are many alternatives to medication that carries the risk of

suicide and serious attendant health problems. There simply is NO

excuse for expecting patients to play Russian Roulette with the magic

bullets so freely dispensed today, especially when they have no idea

they've been entered into such a game.

" In addition, much of the most common medical illness we see,

particularly pain, fatigue, heart disease, diabetic control, and

bowel problems, are strongy and adversely affected by the depressive

and anxiety disorders, and are improved substantially by treating

the mental issues effectively. " Again, contentions. Document them for

me, can you? Have you actually found this in YOUR practice? And, if

so, have you the time to actually follow-up on the adverse effects of

the drugs themselves? Do you even recognize them when you see them?

Most importantly, do you report them when and if you do?

" You do a great disservice and create unnecessary suffering by

attempting to frighten people away from adequate treatment. "

" Adequate " is NOT good enough, when it includes the possibility of

drug-induced death and acute mental and physical suffering. PERIOD.

There is far, far too much money padding the hallowed halls of the

psycho-pharm ivory towers to provide only " adequate " products,

according to their self-ascribed definitions. Since when does

" adequate " include the risk of violent suicides, suicidal ideations,

and murder? Were they truly interested in the health and well being

of their fellow man, they would forego their million dollar profit

margins in pursuit of true alternatives. We unequivocally and

unashamedly intend to frighten people - to give them the opportunity

to find out the truth for themselves BEFORE they decide to take the

risk of becoming victims of drug-induced truly " unnecessary "

suffering. A decent parent will warn a child of the full dangers of

playing with fire. It would be immoral NOT to do so. He or she quite

clearly intends to frighten them for their OWN protection. People are

not stupid, nor are you a god. Give them the facts and let them

decide the full extent of what they are willing to risk suffering…

" You need to have well validated evidence that the alternative

treatments you suggest for severe depression are better than those

proven by the scientific community. " The scientific community HAS and

DOES provide such validated evidence. It is simply pharma money,

which does not stand to make a profit on such things as good

nutrition, vitamins, and the likes that squelches those validated

findings. YOU do YOUR homework, and then we will not need to defend

our stance as per years of published findings. Better yet, find

someone to fund me and I personally will provide the evidence you

demand.

" Until you do, a voice of moderation would be much wiser. " Your

espoused " voice of moderation " is in actuality no voice at all - the

suggestion bordering on absurdity. Moderation? Hmmm. Let's see, I

suppose a voice of " moderation " is called for in regards illegal

drugs - which have been statistically proven to wreak FAR less havoc

than the legally prescribed psychoactives. After all, we wouldn't

want to unduly alarm those who self medicate, would we? Would this

also include moderation in regards the truth regarding alcohol?

Tobacco? No, most assuredly and vehemently, no! Let's get real and

establish the same standards across the board, shall we?

In conclusion, the " wisdom " you self-appointedly admonish us to

practice demands full examination of ALL the facts in any area of

endeavor or discovery, by virtue of the very definition of wisdom.

Wisdom encompasses: " 1. the quality of being wise; good judgment. 2.

learning; knowledge. " I assert, sir or madam, that you are sorely

lacking in that area, and are in NO position to admonish others who

have been at the receiving end of your own profession's obvious lack

of this virtue for far too long. Not only have we had to pay the

price for the lack of wisdom of those we have trusted, we are now

being called upon to investigate, document, learn and disseminate the

information necessary to engage in good judgment and in considering

ALL the facts REQUIRED of wisdom…basically doing the homework you

obviously have not done. We're just not riding around in fancy cars

nor being compensated for our efforts. True love for one's fellow man

pays out in a far higher currency - a clear conscience…

Collissa Weber

> Friends & Fellow Warriors,

>

> The enemy has launched their first strike! Gear up

> valiant soldiers.. The battle has truly begun!

>

> Israel's Warrior

> (Ephesians 6:12)

>

> Note: forwarded message attached.

>

> __________________________________________________

>

October 27, 2001