He's whispering in the ear of Eli Lilly & Co., the manufacturer of Prozac

By Peter R. Breggin, M.D.

(published in The Rights Tenet: Autumn 1994)

In the 1950's, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy cast a shadow of fear across America by conducting a smear campaign of guilt by association. He ruined the careers of many outstanding citizens, including scientists, artists and intellectuals, by accusing them of being associated with communists. McCarthyism has come to stand for the worst in smear tactics through guilt by association.

Eli Lilly & Co., the multi-billion-dollar manufacturer of the antidepressant drug Prozac, has been conducting a McCarthy-like campaign to discredit me and my work. They have tried, falsely, to associate me with the Church of Scientology.

Why Lilly is Running Its Smear Campaign

One aim of Eli Lilly's campaign is to discourage the media from discussing or reviewing my recent book, Talking Back to Prozac, co-authored with my wife Ginger Breggin. Talking Back to Prozac discloses the behind-the-scene machinations before Prozac was approved by the FDA. It documents how it was known from early on, and suppressed, that Prozac has a dangerous stimulant effect similar to the amphetamines and cocaine, including the production of agitation, anxiety, nervousness, hyperactivity, insomnia, nightmares, and weight loss. Also like the classic stimulants, the book points out, Prozac can cause mania, paranoia and violence, as well as "crashing" with depression and suicide.

Prozac

Prozac is so stimulating that many patients require simultaneous treatment with sedatives, such as Klonopin or Xanax. This exposes them to the additional risks of addiction, behavior abnormalities, and mental dysfunction from these sedative tranquilizers. Meanwhile, there is anecdotal evidence that Prozac itself is becoming a drug of abuse.

Talking Back to Prozac also shows how in controlled studies for the FDA, Prozac's beneficial effect was commonly no better than a sugar pill.

Lilly's smear campaign may also be aimed at heading off the effect of our latest book, The War Against Children*, in which Ginger and I explore Lilly's possible role in helping to inspire racist attempts to define inner city children as biologically and genetically violence-prone, and suitable for treatment with drugs like Prozac. [*This book is now newly re-published in 1998 in paperback with a new chapter of updated information under the title of: The War Against Children of Color: Psychiatry Targets Inner City Youth. Common Courage Press, publisher.]
 
 

How Lilly Has Been Trying to Discredit Me

Lilly has been attempting to discredit me by linking my views to those of Scientology, even referring to my views as "Neo-Scientology." It has done so in official letters and verbal communications to the media. for example, on July 20, 1994, Eli Lilly's director of corporate communications, Edward West, faxed a letter to radio station WBAI-FM in New York City. In the letter, the company refused to debate me on WBAI, urged the station not to have me on, and linked my views to those of Scientology. Fortunately, WBAI did invite me on the air, and then gave me a copy of the Eli Lilly letter.

"On July 5, 1994, reporter Cecelia Goodnow wrote a defense of Prozac entitled "Experts say its not a prescription for Trouble" in the Seattle Post Intelligencer in which she quoted Eli Lilly's Edward West as labeling my views "Neo-Scientology."

"Lilly has tried the same tactics in verbal communications when media representatives call for information.

 In fact, I have nothing whatsoever to do with Scientology, a controversial religious group that frequently criticizes psychiatry. Instead, for the last twenty years, I have spoken out against cults in general, and specifically against Scientology.

Ironically, Eli Lilly feels the need to discredit me precisely because I am wholly independent. Unlike many other medical and psychiatric experts, I have no ties to any special interest groups, from cults to drug companies. that is why I can write these books."

 The Impact of Lilly's Smear Tactics

 Eli Lilly's campaign has caused damage to me personally and to my books. In recent months, many contacts from the national media have questioned me extensively on whether or not I am connected to Scientology. Eli Lilly representatives have refused media invitations to debate me, and, instead, seek to discourage the media from allowing my voice to be heard.

Despite initial sales approaching 40,000 copies, Talking Back to Prozac has been reviewed in only one large newspaper or magazine. This one recent exception was a newspaper in Lilly's home town, Indianapolis, where the book was reviewed by a person who admitted to taking Prozac himself and who personally cited the contrary opinions of Lilly's director of corporate communications, calling him by the familiar name, "Ed."

 My Real Opinion of Scientology

 I am not merely neutral about Scientology. I am critical of Scientology. I became familiar with the group in 1972 when--for a short time--I accepted its offer to work together on some reform projects. As I got to know more about the group, I found myself opposed to Scientology's values, agenda, and tactics. I stopped all cooperative efforts in 1974 and publicly declared my criticism of the group in a letter published in Reason as long ago as January 1975. For two decades I have refused to have anything to do with Scientology and have criticized it hundreds of time to the media, on the air, and in public speeches and workshops.

 I have a yet more personal reason for refusing to have anything to do with Scientology. In 1973 I met and fell in love with an idealistic twenty-year-old Ginger Ross; but Scientology officials pressured her to stop seeing me because I was not a member of their group. Ginger and I did not meet again for twelve years. By then she had broken all ties with Scientology and had become a staunch critic of it. We have now been married for ten years and are the co-authors of Talking Back to Prozac and The War Against Children.

 That Lilly would try to link my views with those of Scientology, when Ginger and I are known, long-standing critics of that group, indicates the giant corporation's desperation to prevent the American public from learning the truth about Prozac and the company's corporate practices in researching and promoting it. Eli Lilly's McCarthy-like tactic of trying to link me with Scientology--when I am in fact opposed to that organization--reflects the extreme lengths to which the company will go to protect its profits at the expense of patients.

 Why Would Lilly Do It?

Why would Lilly risk its own reputation by attacking one of its critics in such an unscrupulous fashion? Why would they do this while refusing to confront me in open debate and without even trying to make any factual criticisms of my actual publications? The reason seems simple enough. Billions of dollars are at stake and truth has been sacrificed to profit. Were truth on Lilly's side, the company would be dealing with my criticism in a much more forthright manner--in the truly American way--through open discussion and debate.