That agency went rogue a long, long time ago. It takes no responsibility for launching killer chemicals on the population. In fact the original FDA examiner said NO to the drug: it caused aggression and violence. He knew that. But he was overruled. The drug came to the market anyway.

The plaintiffs suing Eli Lilly were families of the victims of Joseph Wesbecker, a man who went on a deadly shooting rampage in Louisville, Kentucky. He killed 8 and injured 12. It was a critical moment in the history of these drugs because they had been reported to cause violence. If Eli Lilly lost the case, that could be the end of a marvelous gravy train for the industry (as of this writing, 1 in 5 US citizens are on some form of psychiatric medication).

But the trial was rigged. Eli Lilly was exonerated at the time, absolved of any blame for murders by the jury. But it was not an honest trial. Eli Lilly shamelessly (and criminally) gave $20 million in secret bribes to potential witnesses in another trial, which could have gone badly for them at the critical moment.

Not only was Eli Lilly bailed out and escaped consequences. The drug too was “exonerated” and now it’s difficult to get the bent psychiatric profession to tolerate the idea that their stupid drugs are causing mass murders. Prozac and other SSRIs KILL people.

Eli Lilly vigorously shielded the illegal and corrupt payment for more than two decades, defying the Louisville judge who fought to reveal it because he said it swayed the Wesbecker jury’s verdict.

That heroic judge, Circuit Judge John Potter, 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 adequate proof of the terms of the Prozac payoff deal. Lilly succeeded in keeping its criminal action from a judicial proceeding.

As is Big Pharma’s usual strategy, they also trashed the judge and ruined his life, for his pursuit of the truth (Jon Rappoport. www.nomorefakenews.com).

Who Is The Victim Here, The Killer?

On Sept. 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker entered a Louisville print shop around 8:30 a.m., carrying a bag full of weapons, including a semiautomatic rifle. Over the next 30 minutes, as he walked through the building, Wesbecker fired more than 40 rounds at those he encountered before shooting himself in the [head] with a handgun.

So the “official” story is he was crazy. That’s why he committed the murders. But Wesbecker had no murderous traits or suicidal till he started taking Prozac a month before. Moreover this was far from a one-off. Scored of mass murders have now been committed by individuals driven mad by psychiatric drugs.

But the call is now for more drugs, to dose more patients, because they are crazy and might do harm. They are now even subjecting kids at school to psychiatric tests, to see if they have any “tendencies”. If any are spotted, they are out of psych meds. That’s why so many mass murderers are mere kids of school age (Sandy Hook, Columbine, Parkland… look ‘em up).

Jon Rappoport has done a sterling job in collecting media critiques of these deadly drugs:

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 TV 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 an 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 (of course), 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 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, 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.

The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, September, 1991. 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.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the aggressive symptoms disappear.And Jon Rappoport (www.nomorefakenews.com) reminds us that what is true about Prozac is true about Paxil or Zoloft or any of the other SSRI antidepressants.

Susan’s technique is to use small objects to demonstrate or represent the solid realities of a mental concept being worked with. We talk here of the “substance”, the solidity or actuality, and the “meaning” or thought behind it [this comes from Alfred Korzybski and what he called “extentional” and “intentional” meanings].

Thus a car is substance, so is a block of wood representing a car, but the IDEA of a car and the freedom concept it holds for most of us would be the meaning. But we can depict abstract words in the same way: “honesty, “sexual attraction” and “can’t communicate” can all work, once you get the hang of this.

By depicting events and people in this way – and how we react to them – laid out on a table top, we can gain immeasurably greater insights into the mechanics of our problems and so help them vanish.

Show-Me Kits

Any collection of objects will do for this. We can use elastic bands, paper clips, bottle tops, sugar lumps and so forth. I call this a “show-me!” kit.

This is my kit, the one I use at home. I’ve had it for donkey’s years:

A woman’s handbag, incidentally, makes a wonderful portable show-me kit. It usually contains lipstick, nail file, comb, eye-brow pencil, brushes and the like, all of which can be pressed into service to represent “husband”, “boyfriend”, “the boss”, a hobby, time frame, how we FEEL about the boss and so on.

Break Problems Down Into Simpler Forms

Each part of life’s situation or aspect of the problem that is being worked on is laid out separately. So, for example, it is not sufficient merely to lay down a comb and say “That’s the problem”. What parts does the problem have? Who are the people involved? What is UNKNOWN about this situation? What communication is missing? and so on. Set all these out, using a different mass for each significance.

Susan points out that a romantic relationship may have as many as six different games running in it. These need to be teased apart and viewed separately.

You will find that merely examining the problem in detail is therapeutic. Often, the real difficulty surfaces quite early and resolves rapidly. Generally, of course, the individual will have to work at this for some hours or days.

Guiding and Counselling

If you are doing this with someone as a counsellor, you may need to prompt a little and keep the client focused on what matters, especially in regard to the next section. Mostly we leave the person to work it out.

It’s best to avoid trying to give your idea of what the solution might be, no matter how tempting to do so. It is having the individual LOOK at the problem which produces the beneficial effect. That’s why putting down the “stuff” in solid form is so effective. Then it can’t remain hidden and in denial (single biggest reason for stuck problems).

It is interesting that later on the person remembers most vividly what the resolution was, in terms of the show-me kit objects. The meaning is remembered as the substance. It’s a sort of aide memoire. The client might even begin to think “This is a lipstick situation again!”

For those of you who found it interesting this far, you can download a PDF, with examples, and learn more here:

Creative Problem Solutions

[Note: this PDF comes from a new, developing project of resources called The Renegade Guru].