CCHR and the Eli Lilly Wars

[Tru2form]

Right after I started working at CCHR, I remember very briefly talking to the ED, asking her why we weren't really going after the major drug companies who make psych drugs.

She said, "We found out that was the wrong target. It's the psychs who prescribe the pills that are causing the problem, not the drug companies".

I won't get into the whole story of how I figured all this out, but it turns out that CCHR spent most of the 1990's fighting the drug companies. Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and some of the other big pharma companies. They called that period the Prozac Wars, sometimes the Lilly Wars, and I remember feeling slightly sad that I'd missed out on what I truly thought could have been an amazing campaign.

The problem was that big pharma basically walked all over CCHR. Scientology may have some well-trained lawyers and plenty of funding, but they're no match for the heavy hitters. CCHR barely made a dent.

So after almost a decade of wasted funding and failed campaigns, the execs sat down to figure out what the problem was. They used L. Ron Hubbard's notion of "wrong target" as a solution. They figured, "the reason this isn't working is because we're attacking the wrong target, the wrong cause of the psych problem. The main problem isn't the pills, it's the evil psychs themselves."

The result was two-fold:
1) CCHR's enemy turned from something that was real into something that wasn't. As I said, the "psychs" don't exist. When I was working there I always had this feeling that the "psychs" were everywhere, with their grubby paws in everything, just as I'd been taught - but we could never pin down where psychiatric main basestation was. Because there isn't one.

2) CCHR's fight suddenly became unwinnable. You are never going to get the world to agree to outlaw psychiatry (which really is their goal, whether they say so or not), and replace it with Scientology.

Lots of people are pissed at drug companies. I'm not advocating the destruction of big pharma - their research does a lot of good in many ways. But they've also done some rather heinous things, and I think that that is a fight the general public, not just Scientologists, could get behind.

And though, like I said, dismantling the big drug companies isn't good for society as a whole. But with companies that big, with that much power, it's always good to have a few watchdog groups around to keep them in check. I'd be behind that. Parents and teachers could get behind that. Doctors could get behind that.

Then you could talk about overmediation from a logical platform - because overmedication does happen. You could talk about doctors not telling people about negative side-effects, because that too happens.

I'm just sad they turned away from a real issue and decided to make one up instead. Thoughts?

Even if Anonymous falls apart tomorrow, this is what will kill Scientology. The moment they decided they had the perfect tech, the destined themselves to eventual obsolescence.

The same thing will happen with drug companies... the free flow of information will cut off their business; or at least the part of it that doesn't work.

Indeed, they went for the soft target because honestly there is no way they could defeat big pharma on a platform of "oh noes, all you do is kill people and drug our children for profit and that you support the terrible pseudoscience of psychiatry".

TBH, if they'd actually had something other than the inane ramblings of a science fiction writer behind them they might have even stood a chance of getting some kind of public support - but alas they didn't.

So it is without doubt, a grave they dug for themselves.

It's funny - I myself am uncomfortable with the way big pharma operates, and if I wasn't paying attention I might have agreed with their campaign back then. But when CCHR declares all psychiatry is evil, starts attacking doctors...then they lose any credibility with the majority of people.

[Tru2form]

Well, if we are talking about Big Pharma and the FDA, this is something I know a little about since I have family that work in the industry. This is a big issue just in the US overall just with the cost of prescription medication and what does and does not get FDA approval. First of all, the FDA does very little of their own testing and studies. Near as I can tell, they only test and/or commission studies after something has gone to market and has turned out to have "unforeseen" side-effects... like the most recent quitting aid for smoking. Its a drug designed to block pleasure receptors so you get no pleasure from smoking a cigarette. Needless to say, there were a number of suicides from the drug... people not only quit smoking, they quit life.

From what I have seen, the FDA mostly just inspects the manufacturing and packaging facilities and cross check the prior studies done on the product. The responsibility for producing a drug that works and works as intended is left entirely up to the company. Plenty of companies also have foreign manufacturing facilities that get FDA approval all the time, so you would think that it would be a simple matter to get an FDA approval for foreign medications that have already been deemed safe by their version of the FDA. Not so. The FDA inspects every step of manufacturing, not just the final product. So when a facility is being built and different aspects of the manufacturing line are being made operational, the FDA is there to inspect it. I believe that there are some cases were they inspect the exact same product and all of its components start to finish... but I am foggy on the details.

At any rate, the FDA is really only a speed bump for food and drug companies. Many western nations have outlawed the use of MSG in their food as well as trans-fats and the US... most overweight nation on earth... lets our food manufacturers pump our food full of this crap. Ultimately, the FDA isn't there to make sure that our medications work as intended (or advertised) they are there to make sure we don't catch the plague because of un-safe manufacturing processes.

[Tru2form]

Now, see this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. These are issues that America can back. I'd back this campaign - it's painfully obvious what's going on with the FDA.

So why the turn around into wasting money on issues that target a problem that is not only wrong, but made up?

Has something to do, I imagine, with OSA taking over CCHR management 15 years or so ago.

Then again, thank goodness they do this, otherwise people may not be able to see through the facade so easily.

Also, let's just imagine something for a second: let's imagine that Scientology wanted to dismantle psychiatry (real hard, I know). Why aren't they going after psychiatry itself? Why are they going after *psychiatrists*?

Most psychiatrists end up in that profession because they want to help people. If Scientology really wanted to take psychiatry down, they'd hire a bunch of doctors and start doing their own research into a workable alternative.

Oh, no, wait... they already have one of those ready.

Grr, I get really worked up about this one.

I have personally seen the benefit of anti depressant drugs on a young person who had tried all the complementary therapies, counselling, and diet changes before going the doctor advised route of medication. I honestly believe it saved his life. Depression can be as life threatening as a severe infection; would you hesitate to use antibiotics if you had a life threatening infection? And the pharmaceutical companies deserved every penny for researching and creating them.

I am NOT advocating the willy-nilly use of any kind of med you can get your hands on, but I will staunchly support the use of medications when it can: save a life; improve the quality of life; prevent seizures; slow down the onset of disease. The list goes on. Moderation and careful dispensing is vital.

IMO Turning on drugs as a whole is like saying the internet is evil because of all the porn sites. Yeah, plenty can be said about the negative side of it, but look how much good it can do too.

Don't you EVER imply porn is bad... (half joking)

Sex and sexuality is another issue that is muddied up in the Scientology world and like most things, the more you try to quash it, legislate it, tie guilty feelings to it or manipulate it, the more it spins out of control.

Looking over everything that Hubbard wrote about sex gave me some serious WTF moments.

could it be good to have a psychiatry FAQ section on the site? (and perhaps other science/history FAQ sections?) it could mention (in a "neutral point of view" fashion) the credible issues some people have with overmedication etc. and explain how the Scn. claims stray far from credibility.

I guess (besides that there might not be anyone here who feels qualified to write such a thing) having a lot of material on psychology might raise red flags for people trained to be paranoid about nefarious psych influence...

[Tru2form]

This anon is someone who has needed a lot of therapy in her life. And at times I still do. I have a lot of disorders and such, and also physical ailments we can't get to the bottom of.

I've tried lots of medications, I've tried lots of psychs. And they're all different-- both the drugs, and the psychs. You need to find one that works for you.

I'd be dead if I didn't have help-- therapy for many many years. I've found what works for me, and what hasn't.

Edit: Also, I've gone years without drugs or psychiatry. I've tried everything, believe me XD

But like any thing, it's been oversimplified by Scientology, and even by mass media. Yes, there are some crooked psychs out there-- also crooked doctors, dentists, cops, teachers, bankers, grocery baggers... scientologists people are people.

That kind of generalization is dangerous. Not everything has simple answers-- few things do. And not all problems have solutions... a sad fact of life.

Well, I've said too much. Suffice it to say, if scientology 'succeeded' in ridding the world of psychological treatment, I'd probably be screwed :/ Or maybe in jail, or probably dead.