HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why did Forbes pull this-...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 07:33 PM

 

Why did Forbes pull this-"Psychiatric Drugs, Not A Lack Of Gun Control, Are The Common...

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by REP (a host of the General Discussion forum).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2013/01/14/psychiatric-drugs-not-a-lack-of-gun-control-are-the-common-denominator-in-murderous-violence/

@6:30pmEST


At 7pm EST it was still in Google:



The article 2 notches above is still online:

Anti-Depressants Often Found But Not Reported in Shootings
By Glenn Gramigna

Why did twenty year old Adam Lanza open fire on a helpless kindergarten class last week, killing twenty kids and six adults? Why has America been forced to endure a steady stream of such incidents over the past twenty years, from Columbine to Tucson, to Virginia Tech to Aurora?

While the corporate media continues to explore certain answers to this question while avoiding others, many believe the real explanation begins with the sad experience of a certain Mrs. Kinkel in June of 1996. While on vacation in Costa Rica that year, she could often be heard bragging that, “The Prozac is working,” referring to the antidepressant her teenage son Kip had been put on by psychiatrists.

Sometime later, a fifteen year old Kip used a 9mm Glock and a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle to murder both his parents, before killing two and wounding twenty-four others at nearby Thurston High School.

In fact, the link between the epidemic of mass murders over the past twenty years in the US and the widespread prescribing of antidepressants coinciding with this phenomenon has been widely written about. Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington and Congressman Dennis Kucinich have both been pioneers in bringing the issue to the attention of the public...>>MORE
http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/Stories/2012/Dec18/AntiDepressants.html


If discussion of this health hazard is being suppressed at high levels do you think this is a criminal act?


79 replies, 5855 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 79 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why did Forbes pull this-"Psychiatric Drugs, Not A Lack Of Gun Control, Are The Common... (Original post)
green for victory Jan 2013 OP
Squinch Jan 2013 #1
green for victory Jan 2013 #2
Katashi_itto Jan 2013 #22
Ian David Jan 2013 #3
green for victory Jan 2013 #4
Confusious Jan 2013 #7
HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #8
Th1onein Jan 2013 #9
Confusious Jan 2013 #13
HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #14
BuelahWitch Jan 2013 #17
Confusious Jan 2013 #19
HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #21
green for victory Jan 2013 #27
Confusious Jan 2013 #29
HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #20
Confusious Jan 2013 #24
HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #25
green for victory Jan 2013 #26
HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #28
Th1onein Jan 2013 #37
Confusious Jan 2013 #38
Th1onein Jan 2013 #43
Confusious Jan 2013 #44
Th1onein Jan 2013 #59
Confusious Jan 2013 #66
Confusious Jan 2013 #70
MADem Jan 2013 #50
Th1onein Jan 2013 #60
MADem Jan 2013 #63
Th1onein Jan 2013 #64
MADem Jan 2013 #65
Th1onein Jan 2013 #72
MADem Jan 2013 #74
Th1onein Jan 2013 #75
Confusious Jan 2013 #39
Th1onein Jan 2013 #61
Confusious Jan 2013 #67
Th1onein Jan 2013 #73
BuelahWitch Jan 2013 #15
Confusious Jan 2013 #18
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #23
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #40
Confusious Jan 2013 #42
louis-t Jan 2013 #55
Confusious Jan 2013 #57
louis-t Jan 2013 #62
bowens43 Jan 2013 #54
MADem Jan 2013 #11
green for victory Jan 2013 #30
MADem Jan 2013 #31
Confusious Jan 2013 #35
MADem Jan 2013 #48
Confusious Jan 2013 #36
bowens43 Jan 2013 #53
SidDithers Jan 2013 #6
Th1onein Jan 2013 #10
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #5
SidDithers Jan 2013 #12
BuelahWitch Jan 2013 #16
MirrorAshes Jan 2013 #32
Follow The Money Jan 2013 #46
MADem Jan 2013 #49
ananda Jan 2013 #33
Follow The Money Jan 2013 #45
Skidmore Jan 2013 #34
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #41
Rex Jan 2013 #47
bowens43 Jan 2013 #51
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #68
Recursion Jan 2013 #52
2pooped2pop Jan 2013 #56
ceile Jan 2013 #58
Confusious Jan 2013 #71
Taitertots Jan 2013 #69
libdem4life Jan 2013 #76
defacto7 Jan 2013 #77
Deep13 Jan 2013 #78
REP Jan 2013 #79

Response to green for victory (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 07:36 PM

1. Ugh. Must we?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 07:41 PM

2. "We" don't but I and hopefully 1 or 2 others must, yes

 

coverups ok with you?

ongoing health hazards no problem?

How many people are in danger because of the lack of will to discuss this?
Who will have blood on their hands after the next shooting?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:59 AM

22. +100

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 07:49 PM

3. Probably because they realized it was full of shit? n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 07:56 PM

4. but it's not full of shit

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

http://ssristories.com/index.php

Here's RFK's son Douglas Harriman Kennedy saying the same thing:



Michael Moore says the same thing too:



Dennis Kucinich agrees.

Are those people full of shit?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:26 PM

7. Ever notice half the mass shootings happened

Before anti depressants became available in 1988?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:28 PM

8. Don't bother confronting anyone with facts, it just makes them angry.

Ser1esly.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:49 PM

9. Actually, I never noticed that. Maybe because it's not actually true!

Bzzzzt! Go back, do your homework. Your statement is factually incorrect.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:19 AM

13. Prove it.

Prove all these shootings started after the introduction of SSRIs.

You're going to have a really hard time, becuase I'm old enough to remember when there weren't SSRIs, but there were shootings.

Wikipedia also has a nice list of all the shootings. They prove you wrong.

Go back to Alex Jones or whatever conspiracy nut rock you crawled out of, th1onein

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:30 AM

14. The wiki site on rampage shootings in the US isn't complete

This article from Mother Jones, has a more complete database for shootings since 1982.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Merging the Wiki site and the Mother Jones database gives a much more complete picture of the history of mass shootings in the US.

However, it is true that SSRI's, particularly the spectacular successfully marketed Prozac weren't introduced into the market until the late 1980's. Mass shootings indeed did take place prior to that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:39 AM

17. There's about 6 or so on that map pre-1990

Most of them are 1993 or later.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BuelahWitch (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:42 AM

19. Lists

Prozac was approved for general use Dec. 1987, so 1988 would be a good starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas (list does not include school shootings or workplace killings)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Europe (list does not include school shootings or workplace killings)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Workplace_killings

Please, feel free to prove each and every one of these people were on SSRIs.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:56 AM

21. I didn't make that claim.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:20 AM

27. here's a resource

 

http://ssristories.com/index.php

a sourced and sortable (location, drug, description) database of 4800 incidents involving SSRI drugs

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:28 AM

29. Bullshit site

One story says the man was on ambien and 'other drugs.' no info one what the 'other drugs' were, or even if the guy was trying to use it as a bullshit excuse to get off. Gets lumped into the SSRIs.

Dishonest. Untrustworthy.

http://bipolar.about.com/b/2011/11/14/website-ssri-stories-distorts-the-connection-between-violence-and-ssri-antidepressants.htm

http://bipolar.about.com/od/crime/a/ssri-violence-connection-distorted.htm

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BuelahWitch (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:54 AM

20. Yes, I had to place my reply somewhere...I was trying to address both the previous 2 threads.

The wiki site together with the Mother Jones story (which is exclusively after 1982) present a more complete history of mass shootings... they are reported more often in recent years.

One of the problems with armchair analysis of the trends around the mass shootings is that there are multiple confounding factors which are moving in the same direction ...

SSRIs can't be a problem until SSRI's hit the market and once they did, their use expanded and more and more types were produced. And that trajetory moves in the same general direction as the increase in mass shootings.

During that same time...

Semiautomatic firearms that used high capacity magazines became increasingly available and increasingly popular among people who had money to buy them...and that moves in the same general directions as the increase in mass shootings.




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:11 AM

24. You could say that about a lot of things

I was on the 'Internet' in 1992. More people have gotten on the internet since then, marking a rise in the number of shootings since.



http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/101%20Psych%20&%20Life--Correlation-causation.htm

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:15 AM

25. Yes, you could say it and it has been said about, for example, video games

And it's all made much more difficult because, thankfully, mass shootings remain relatively rare events and so the variability around any association with mass shootings should be expected to be large.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:16 AM

26. If I searched properly

 

the mother jones article does not contain the string SSRI, Antidepressant or Drug on either page (drug appears in the comment section).

Isn't that curious?

If every school shooter since 1989 had been on an LSD trip do you think Mother Jones would have mentioned that?

Here's what I think is going on, quoting from the paper by Dr. David Healy at the National Institutes of Health:

Antidepressants and Violence: Problems at the Interface of Medicine and Law
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564177/

Both clinical trial and pharmacovigilance data point to possible links between these drugs and violent behaviours. The legal cases outlined returned a variety of verdicts that may in part have stemmed from different judicial processes. Many jurisdictions appear not to have considered the possibility that a prescription drug may induce violence...


At least I hope that is the case, because the alternative is much uglier.

This linked Mother Jones article-
Mass Shootings: Maybe What We Need Is a Better Mental-Health Policy
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/jared-loughner-mass-shootings-mental-illness

does state the following:
"..Nearly 80 percent of the perpetrators in these 62 cases obtained their weapons legally. Acute paranoia, delusions, and depression were rampant among them, with at least 36 of the killers committing suicide on or near the scene....

...Loughner was medicated..." <<<-----------That's all 2 articles devoted to SSRI's.

--Which hardly begins to touch the issue- verify that by clicking here:
http://ssristories.com/index.php

Why do YOU think the Mother Jones article fails to mention that every school shooter in the last 20 years save perhaps one -*(I've heard that a shooter in KY was not under the influence of lab drugs) has either been on, or withdrawing from, antidepressants?

They forgot?

Do you think this fact is insignificant- not even worthy of mention in an article that purports to examine mass shootings in the USA in depth?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:25 AM

28. I can't really get inthe heads of the authors or editors of MJ, can you?

Of course, critical reading and noticing what is missing is important to understanding all the shit being published.

The danger of that, is of course, that our prejudices lead us to see what we want...a phenomenon known as confirmational bias.

I am aware of and have been to the ssristories site.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:01 AM

37. YOU are the one who asserted that "half of these shootings happened before SSRIs"

YOU, who made the assertion, must prove your assertion. Show me where you got your facts.

Yes, there were SOME shootings, but the shootings began to rise quite precipitiously AFTER SSRIs hit the market.

You have the habit of lobbing personal attacks, Confuscious, and here you go again, "Go back to Alex Jones..." It doesn't help your credibility and it doesn't shore up your argument.

I am not a gun nut, a conspiracy theorist, or a fundie (as you called me on another thread). There are some very credible people who agree with me--for instance, Michael Moore, Henry Waxman, and University of Cardiff's Dr. Michael Healy. Surely you are not calling them gun nuts, conspiracy theorist, or fundies, are you? The FACT is that they are all, quite rightly, sounding the alarm bell about these drugs, and the pharmas are settling quietly out of court.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:33 AM

38. Some? There were shitloads

As for waxman, et al. Even university proffessors do crazy shit, and people elected to office hold crazy views.

So your argument from authority is a fallacy and crap. Try facts.

Prozac was approved for general use Dec. 1987, so 1988 would be a good starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas (list does not include school shootings or workplace killings)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Europe (list does not include school shootings or workplace killings)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Workplace_killings

Please, feel free to prove each and every one of these people were on SSRIs.

You can't, and you won't, because your argument Is bullshit.

And please, feel free to alert on the 'personal' attacks, seeing as they are against the rules.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:21 PM

43. "Some" is correct. They peaked AFTER SSRIs were introduced.

Prozac was approved in the US at the end of 1987. Mass murders peaked in the 1980's and have continued to rise in the years thereafter. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-between-the-headlines/201207/mass-murders-are-the-rise

If you expect me to agree that there should have been a peak in mass murders in the year that Prozac was introduced on the market, you underestimate my intelligence. We all know that since Prozac was approved in 1987, there have been a myriad of copycat drugs that have come out since then, and as these drugs begin to flood the market, the amount of violence caused by people taking these drugs will increase incrementally. That's what we are seeing. There is a definite correlation.

I'm so sorry that you feel that you are entitled to continue to wage personal attacks in this forum. It is very sad that you think that that sort of behavior shores up your arguments.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:50 PM

44. Your own link says your theory is bullshit

However, the study, Violence and Severe Mental Illness: The Effects of Substance Abuse and Nonadherence to Medication, found that when when a mentally ill individual was not medicated and abused either alcohol or drugs, there was a significant increase in serious and violent acts.


If you expect me to agree that there should have been a peak in mass murders in the year that Prozac was introduced on the market, you underestimate my intelligence. We all know that since Prozac was approved in 1987


You fail to understand, so I might question that. If SSRIs where the cause of violence, then we should be seeing violence go up, not down. There should be no killings or few before that point. We don't see either.

If you can't handle people telling you your theory is bullshit maybe you should stay off the internet.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:03 PM

59. You fail to understand....

"If you can't handle people telling you your theory is bullshit maybe you should stay off the internet." THIS is, once again, a personal attack, Confuscious. Can you argue your point without attacking people, personally? It seems not, judging from your behavior on this forum, and in other threads.

Now, violence HAS gone up since the SSRI drugs hit the market. The statement that you make that "There should be no killings or few before that point, " ignores the FACT that there has been a spike in rampage killings AFTER SSRIs hit the market. Why do you continue to ignore that FACT?

There are, without a doubt, many people who take SSRIs and have no adverse effects, but there are almost 5% that DO suffer very serious adverse effects, and some of these adverse effects, such as akathisia, are very, very dangerous to the rest of us.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:02 PM

66. That is not a personal attack

If I called you a whiner, THAT would be a personal attack.

Saying your theory or opinion is bullshit is NOT a personal attack. Now I see why you think the way you do.

You still have yet to show one study that shows rampage killers killed becuase of SSRIs, or show that all of those people were on SSRIs.

I'm waiting. (ssristories is not proof.neither is Alex jones. You two have the same opinion, so what can I say? It's bullshit)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:29 PM

70. Yea, sorry, mass shootings not on the rise

It's a myth. What is on the rise is the coverage of mass shootings. If it bleeds, it leads.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/mass-shootings-not-on-the-rise_n_2308493.html

And the added bonus, PHDs who actually study the facts, not just a reporter or some crank on the intertubes saying so!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:22 PM

50. What else happened in the eighties?

More divorces? More single and working parents? The rise of the dreaded VIDEO GAME?

I don't think we can point to any ONE thing and say "Ah ha--THAT is the reason!"

It could be that you take several contributing factors, insignificant on their own, and put them all together and create a problem. Bleach and ammonia are reasonably safe in their own containers; mix 'em together and you're in the trenches in WW1.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:06 PM

60. I don't discount the idea of a "perfect storm," MADem.

Nevertheless, one of those "storms" is the wholesale doling out of SSRI drugs.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:41 PM

63. That's just one part of the storm.

It's not just the rain, it's the wind, and the tides, and the flooding, the tornados that pop up, the hail storms.... and the low hanging electric lines, and the old trees with poor root systems....it takes a lot of different inputs to cause the damage with a really good storm.

There are a ton of variables that enter into the mess of a school shooting, too.

By laying the "blame" at the feet of the drugs, by giving them "pride of place," and highlighting them to the exclusion of other issues, you are creating an accusatory sense, here and people are quite rightly taking exception to this. Most people who take those drugs don't run around killing people with assault rifles. In fact, the overwhelming majority do not.

We could just as easily lay the "blame" on bad parents, or bullying/mocking in school, too many video games, being white and male, or a host of other variables that pretty much make up your typical school shooter. Or we could blame physicians who prescribe these drugs without ascertaining how much support the child is getting in the school and home environment.

A cup of flour is not a cake, after all. There are many ingredients and it takes all of 'em to create the confection.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:50 PM

64. I'm sorry, MADem, but I disagree with you entirely.

Look, I'm a pacifist. I don't like guns, don't even like the military, because I think that they are a force, not for defense, but for killing. I don't think ANYONE should own a gun, period. But guns have been around a long time. Bad parents have been around for a long, long time, as have bullies. Video games are a relatively new addition, but I doubt they have that much effect on real behavior. The fact is that these other "variables" don't hold a candle to five percent of the 31 million Americans (and that's just the adults!) who are taking SSRI drugs, who have an adverse event and go out to kill the themselves while taking some of the rest of us with them. In fact, they are known to cause hostility and aggressive, violent behavior in patients taking them. I think that we ignore these warnings at our own peril.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #64)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:37 PM

65. Have you ever seen those video games? They are pretty violent.

They're loud, they display realistic weapons, they provide feedback through the gaming device, and they provide a measure of urgency and excitement that causes the player to be more and more willing to pull the trigger the more they play the games. And they're "new" -- since the 1980s.

What else is "new" since then? A MAJOR rise in autism spectrum diagnoses....why not "blame" that? What's in the food, air, water that is causing that uptick? Let's point our fingers that-a-way!


Guns may have "been around" for a long, long time, but when I was a kid, the toy of choice was a play six shooter, not a fricken toy assault weapon. The change in the firepower of weapons readily available to the average schmuck has changed in the last thirty years--it's as significant as the diffference between a musket and a revolver.

Children were bullied back in the day, too, but they weren't bullied so relentlessly, so cruelly, so constantly, using social media and telephones, around the clock. Why not acknowledge that as a trigger?

And parents? Single parent families were the EXCEPTION, not the rule. Two parents working? Again, the exception. Parents may have not always been Ward and June, but they were PRESENT, and they provided a structure to a child's environment.

There most certainly ARE other variables--and laying all this "blame" at the feet of pills is just not supported by any real evidence. We'd be just as well off blaming "whiteness" as "The" cause, because most of these shooters are bright white and light, not down with the brown.

Here's an interesting "fact:" Not one child who did NOT have access to weapons, who has been on pills, or had a mood disorder, or who enjoyed violent video games has ever shot up a school. We know that's a certain correlation--the access to guns. No guns, no crime.

You are confusing correlation with causation, and you're (I trust unwittingly) insulting people who are using these medications to control depression or mood disorders or what-have-you, and who have never, ever, not once, had the urge to go out and shoot up a classroom. I'm not a patron of the pills but even I can see that, and I can understand why they are angered and insulted.

It's like blaming all Muslims for Osama--there's just no way to defend against what is, in effect, bigotry.

Why not blame doctors for not carefully monitoring side effects and making adjustments as required? That seems like a more productive tack than blaming the medications that work very well for some people, if the comments on this website are to be believed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #65)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:46 PM

72. Far from confusing causation with correlation.......

You said, "You are confusing correlation with causation, and you're (I trust unwittingly) insulting people who are using these medications to control depression or mood disorders or what-have-you, and who have never, ever, not once, had the urge to go out and shoot up a classroom. I'm not a patron of the pills but even I can see that, and I can understand why they are angered and insulted."

I am saying that there is a very strong correlation between the administration of these drugs and the rise in rampage killings. When there is a strong enough correlation, you need to pay attention. You need to investigate. No one is doing that; instead, they are going after guns. I don't think that's going to do anyone any good.

I am NOT, once again, insulting people who take these drugs, NOT EVEN THE ONES WHO GO ON RAMPAGE KILLINGS. They are victims, too. What I am saying is that we have 31 million Americans on these drugs, most of whom have had little or no oversight by their medical professionals, either when they begin the drug, or when their dosage is changed, and THAT is a recipe for disaster when almost FIVE PERCENT of this group have been shown to experience violent, suicidal and homicidal rages as a side effect of taking these drugs. This is a FACT that is not disputed, even by the drug companies who sell these compounds. Do the math. Five percent of 31 million? Lots of violent people out there, but it has NOTHING to do with the rise in these types of killings? Yeah, right.

You said, "Why not blame doctors for not carefully monitoring side effects and making adjustments as required? That seems like a more productive tack than blaming the medications that work very well for some people, if the comments on this website are to be believed."

And what makes you think that I am NOT blaming them? I have said before that these patients need oversight. They need to be monitored VERY closely, as in hospitalization, when they go on the drugs, or when their dosage has changed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #72)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:45 AM

74. Thing is, the patients who take these pills have said, here on this board, that they feel like they

are having the Finger of Culpability pointed at them, and they don't like it.

No one is saying "Blame the doctors." That IS what should be happening, but it's not. The doctors should monitor dosages carefully, check with school, teachers, get some vigorous feedback, spend time interviewing the patients to see if the drug is working and not harming, etc. And actively look for signs that the patient is not dealing well on the drug/s in question.

Every post I have read on this topic talks about "Background checking the crazies who take pills" or "Locking 'em up so they can't go buy guns" or something similarly insensitive. None say "It is the responsibility of the doctor to ensure that the patient is on the right pill/s and the right dosages to avoid any interactions or overdoses that could lead to psychosis or some sort of disconnect." There's too much labeling of people who suffer an illness, and not enough scrutiny of the doctors. Even after the fact!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #74)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:02 AM

75. I'm sorry that they feel that way, but I don't feel as if I have given them a reason to feel that

way, with my posts. I have said continuously that these DRUGS need to be pulled off of the market OR that there needs to be some very strict monitoring by health professionals, when they prescribe these drugs. These are very dangerous drugs; they have very dangerous side effects. And, yet, they are being handed out like candy. Ninety five percent of patients who are given these drugs for the first time have NO FOLLOWUP. It's amazing incompetence. It's criminal.

I HAVE NEVER labeled these patients. EVER. I have said, however, that they need to be hospitalized when they first go on these drugs, and if they have a dosage change, or when they go off of them, because that is when they are likely to suffer these very damaging, and dangerous, adverse effects.

Remember Ambien? People were waking up as they were driving to work in their pajamas. Doing all kinds of bizarre things while still in a sleep state. Can you imagine going to the doctor, being prescribed an antidepressant and waking up in a jail cell having killed 12 people? Or never waking up again, because you killed your mother, yourself, and over twenty other people, including children? What a tragedy, for everyone, and all for the want of a system that recognizes the dangers of these drugs and prevents, through monitoring, this kind of behavior.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:39 AM

39. Maybe you can blame the lack of pirates



Seeing as there are fewer pirates, the number of shootings goes up.

How about the internet? The more people that got on the internet, the more shootings there were. Maybe we should shut down the internet, that'll stop the shootings!.

Your assertions are based on Correlation means Causation, which is a fallacy and bullshit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:13 PM

61. Correlation studies provide great data.

They are often used to find relationships between different variables. In fact, if you were to ever do a study on this very topic, you would HAVE to use a correlational study for ethical reasons. You couldn't simply give one group a drug and another a placebo and see which one went out to commit rampage killings.

And, by the way, this is the SAME bullshit argument that tobacco companies used for years, to deny that smoking CAUSED lung cancer. We all know better now, don't we?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:10 PM

67. Show me a study then

Showing that SSRIs caused all those Shooters to go wacko. That the shootings are because of the drugs. The problem your going to face is that the last one wasn't on anything.

The cops found no drugs.

The fanapt story was a hoax.

SSRIs aren't used to treat aspergers.


The problem with your tabaco story I'd that there were real facts behind the studies.

Not just a correlation like you want everyone to believe.


Maybe its the guns? How about that?

Maybe there should be more money and training for proper diagnosis?

No, you go directly for the drugs. Who gives a shit if it helps people? Who gives a shit if the mentally ill lose thier freedom? Who gives a shit if the mentally ill lose thier right to privacy? Says everything about you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #67)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:48 PM

73. Confuscious, you continue, unabated, to launch personal attacks.

I am DONE with you. I'm putting you on ignore.

Next time you reply to a post from me, you can consider yourself talking to the hand, kiddo.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:32 AM

15. Which mass shootings were these?

I'm not a gun person, but I seem to remember lots of mass shootings AFTER 1988, not before.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BuelahWitch (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:42 AM

18. I'm not going to post excerpts, because it's just to long.

Prozac was approved for general use Dec. 1987, so 1988 would be a good starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas (list does not include school shootings or workplace killings)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Europe (list does not include school shootings or workplace killings)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Workplace_killings

Please, feel free to prove each and every one of these people were on SSRIs.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:09 AM

23. Did you read that list? It's mostly one person killing another for some specific reason, e.g.

 

July 22, 1950: New York City, New York A 16-year-old boy was shot in the wrist and abdomen at the Public School 141 dance during an argument with a former classmate.

April 27, 1936: Lincoln, Nebraska Prof. John Weller shot and wounded Prof. Harry Kurz in a corridor of the University of Nebraska, apparently because of his impending dismissal at the end of the semester. After shooting Kurz Weller tried to escape, but was surrounded by police on the campus, whereupon he killed himself with a shot in the chest.

or an accident, e.g.:

December 24, 1948: New York City, New York A 14-year-old boy was fatally wounded by a shot from the .22-caliber rifle of a fellow student Robert Ross, 17. The youth was accidentley shot in the head when he chanced into range where Ross was target shooting near a lake on the school property.

or suicide, e.g.

December 1, 1947: Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania Donald Peabody Sargent, 14, shot himself to death in his junior high school classroom.


or something political, e.g.:

January 17, 1969: Los Angeles, California Two student members of the Black Panther Party, Alprentice Carter and John Huggins, were fatally shot during a student meeting inside Campbell Hall at the University of California, Los Angeles. The motive of the shooting regarded who would own the school's African American Studies Center. The shooter, Claude Hubert, was never to be found but three other men were arrested in connection with the shooting.


There are a couple of mass shootings in the 60s & 70s, but it takes off after that. Assuming this is a representative list, there's a big demarcation at the 80s.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:42 AM

40. But it may be that SUICIDAL TENDENCIES are a common denominator. Like Suicidal bombers.

I posted a link twice in GD about a researcher who has linked mass shootings in public with suicidal bombers.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:45 AM

42. That's what the secret service says

People who do end up assassinating politicians feel like their world is caving around them and they have nothing left to loose.

They're no crazy, they're not on drugs. They're tom dick and harry. and sometimes lisa.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:42 PM

55. It's 'lose'.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis-t (Reply #55)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:28 PM

57. Yeesh, make one little mistake and they pounce.

Is that the accepted spelling of yeesh?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:17 PM

62. It is a very common thing, for some reason.

'Loose' for 'lose'. Ridiculously common. Sorry, it's turned into a pet peeve. I used to see it at least once a day here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:35 PM

54. mass shootings are the tip of a very large iceburg.....

most people killed in gun violence in this country are not killed in mass shootings.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 09:12 PM

11. Douglas Kennedy is the guy who got away with roughing up a couple of nurses who didn't

want him sauntering out of the hospital with his newborn without checking out first.

He has been working for Rupert Murdoch for years--first at the POST, then at FauxSnooze. He might be motivated to tout this story because it engenders strong emotions. Strong emotions produce ratings, ratings produce pay raises.

I'll bet that a lot of other factors are a strong indicator of the likelihood of someone shooting up a school; like, say
--Shyness
--Lack of empathy
--Low tolerance for frustration
--Angry outbursts
--Social rejection from peers
--Bad family relations
--Access to weapons

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20070820/what-triggers-school-shooters

--Interest in Violent Media
--History of Violent Behavior
--Writing about Violence or Death
--Peer Rejection
--Suicidal Thoughts or Gestures

http://www.marshall.edu/jrcp/sp2002/similarities_of_school_shootings.htm

They're male and mostly caucasian, too.

--Male
--Caucasian
--Withdrawn (pulls back from school activities)
--Isolated or rejected from peers
--Living in a rural community
--Have easy access to weapons
--Bullied repeatedly from a young age (there is a point when the bullied child flips roles and becomes the bully)
--From a troubled home

http://www.sharecare.com/question/what-characteristics-school-shooters

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:40 AM

30. The Congressonal Testimony of Dr. Peter Breggin

 

is worth listening to



Now some will call Dr. Peter Breggin a quack. Big Pharma tried to slime him as a Scientologist- that's the slime du jour against those that want to examine these SSRI drugs. Does Dr. Peter Breggin look like a quack? Notice these woo woo'ers never accuse the Big Pharma "doctors" who ghost write sales articles and jigger the numbers on the "tests" that big pharma does to ram approval through the FDA of being quacks. And to call these crooks and liars quacks would be generous, they're criminals and belong in jail- there's no problem locking up people that grow plants is there?

So HERE IS DR. PETER BREGGIN

Education and early career

Breggin graduated from Harvard College with honors, and attended Case Western Reserve Medical School. His postgraduate training in psychiatry began with an internship year of mixed medicine and psychiatry at the State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse. Breggin completed a first year of psychiatric residency at Harvard's Massachusetts Mental Health Center in Boston, where he was a teaching fellow at Harvard Medical School, and finished his final two years of psychiatric residency at SUNY. This was followed by a two-year staff appointment to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), where he worked to build and staff mental health centers and education. Breggin has taught at several universities, obtaining faculty appointments to the Washington School of Psychiatry, the Johns Hopkins University Department of Counseling, and the George Mason University Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. Breggin has worked in a private practice since 1968.

Breggin is a life member of the American Psychiatric Association and an editor for several scientific journals. His opinions have been portrayed both favorably and unfavorably in the media, including Time Magazine and the New York Times. He has appeared as a guest on many radio and television shows, including 60 Minutes, 20/20, Nightline, and numerous network news reports.



have at it, Woo Woo Brigade



--Interest in Violent Media
--History of Violent Behavior
--Writing about Violence or Death
--Peer Rejection
--Suicidal Thoughts or Gestures

http://www.marshall.edu/jrcp/sp2002/similarities_of_school_shootings.htm

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:00 AM

31. My only point is this--there are a number of "points of similarity."

Not just one. It's not all about the drugs, or all about the peer interaction, or all about the parenting or the videogames or camo clothing or what-have-you.

I don't discount the influence of medication on a person for whom the medication is inappropriate to the condition.

That said, there's a perfect storm that produces these events, and that perfect storm includes a number of other factors, and it also includes access to the weapons used to do the deed.

I am not a user of these medications, but I suspect those that are, and who have no inclination to shoot up a school, might be a bit put off by an assertion by Forbes Magazine or any other publication that "If a person takes X drug, they're likely to shoot their classmates."

That's what is driving the agita of some, I surmise.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:39 AM

35. I do take those drugs, and have for 14 years

I've also known quite a few people who have, and yes, it does drive the agita.

That, and saying that mentally ill people should be registered with the government and that people who are on medication should be locked up until it's determined that they are no danger to society.

People willing to take away others freedom and right to privacy and supposed democrats no less.

That REALLY drives the agita.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:13 PM

48. I can understand your irritation.

The broad brush has a tendency to, quite wrongly, paint over a lot of people.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:56 AM

36. He's a global climate change denier too!

It never ceases to amaze me how woo people (I believe you've been called that before, since you seem to know the term) will trot out people, usually just one person, who disagrees with "the establishment" and want him taken as fact, while on the other side are thousands Or millions who say he's full of shit. (Fox news and creationist do that too, you have something in common)

What is it? Do you think he has some special connection to the universal mind so he knows better then those other thousands of people?

Is it a conspiracy? is it because he's so "counterculture?" You think they're brave to stand up and shout down those mean people who don't accept homeopathy, because there's absolutely no proof it works?

Does one hate trump another?

Do you just not think about the millions of people these medications have helped, what they have to go through, what they have gone through? it's OK to blame a class of people for what a few have done? or do you just think it doesn't exist? People should just "man up" and get over it?

Is it some sort of disconnect? Pharma companies are all evil, so they can't have done at least one thing right? Hate to tell you, but the world is shades of grey.


It's hard to tell a genius from a crazy. Unfortunately, there are more of the latter then the former. Pick your sources carefully.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:33 PM

53. if they blame drugs and mental illness instead of the guns , yes they are full of shit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:16 PM

6. Yup...

Hard to believe that maybe Forbes has more integrity than some DUers.

Sid

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:49 PM

10. Nah! It's not about integrity with them. Follow the money.

Surely you know better. It's always about the money.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:12 PM

5. Perhaps they realized that even a RW rag like FORBES had gone too far pro-gun

in taking the desperate lurch into the conspiracy jungle by attributing these things to the pills.

Or perhaps the article was found to be full of distortions?

Who knows why?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 09:25 PM

12. court jester, Gravel Democrat...nt

Sid

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:33 AM

16. Afraid of pissing off their big pharma advertisers?

Just a guess.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:33 AM

32. I took myself off SSRIs; so glad I did.

That is NOT to say we shouldn't look at all angles of gun control. I'd ban them completely if I had my way. But after 10 years on various drugs I kept being told I needed, I feel the best I have in as long as I can remember.

There is no reason to go all Alex Jones conspiracy alarmist over it, but it IS a real issue.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MirrorAshes (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:01 PM

46. +10000

 

There is no reason to go all Alex Jones conspiracy alarmist over it, but it IS a real issue.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Follow The Money (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:16 PM

49. So is being caucasian, having crappy parents or enjoying ready access to weapons, apparently.

One can focus on any one of the ingredients that feed into the recipe for a school shooter, and pay it more attention than it deserves, and focus on it as "the" cause of the problem, to the exclusion of all others.

A pinch of salt, or a teaspoon of baking soda, does not a cake make. You need quite a few other ingredients to produce one of those.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:38 AM

33. Corporate fascism controlling content on the internet and tv is criminal.

..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:00 PM

45. +100000000

 

nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:38 AM

34. What to do...what to do? I mean when you have to big dollar industries

which have contributed to so much destruction and their owners are part of the 1%...er...500 or 100 club you belong to, loyalty becomes difficult.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:44 AM

41. There's the very real possibility that suicidal tendencies play a huge role in mass shootings

as there is in suicide bombings.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:02 PM

47. 'If discussion of this health hazard is being suppressed at high levels...'

Nice RWing fantasy, maybe you should go live in the future tea party compound! They love this kinda shit! Could it be possible that the article was BS? Nah, you would never take that into consideration. Too easy right?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:32 PM

51. Well in EVERY case of gun violence a gun was involved........

pretty clear that the problem is the easy accessibility of guns and ammo.....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:22 PM

68. +1. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:33 PM

52. Because they remembered they're not the Weekly World News? (nt)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:22 PM

56. Because many members of congress called and told them to back off

their other cash cow; big pharm? Can't dis the other big money contributors you know.

I think they have probably now been instructed to blame it on birth control. Perhaps they can find a way to tie it to blacks or gays if the birth control angle doesn't work.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:47 PM

58. This crap again?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceile (Reply #58)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:42 PM

71. Yep, just like a turd that keeps floating to the surface. Nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:22 PM

69. Who can honestly say if they were smoking K2 or bath salts that it wouldn't be front page...

on every single newspaper. It would be the headline on every website and parents would demand that it be outlawed.

Big pharm is going to shut any inquiry into this down. Regardless if it had an effect or not, big money won't sit idle while their cash cow gets questioned.

Even if there isn't a connection, the widespread use of psychoactive pharmaceuticals needs to be seriously investigated.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:18 AM

76. The Mental Health community has pretty much 3 options: Weekly therapy sessions@ $120-150 per week,

psychiatric drug prescriptions free or w/copay, or confinement at a mental health facility @ $80,000 a year for life...say times 50 years for a teenager. Given the public pretty much ends up with the tab in the end, which one to vote for????

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:21 AM

77. This happens all the time.

All of a sudden, a "conspiracy" appears when a site decides to pull a report or there is a net glitch.

First show it's unusual, then call it a "possible" conspiracy and delight in the ethereal bliss of the unknown.

The discussion is OK but stop with conspiracy theory rhetoric.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:41 AM

78. Horseshit.

If anything, it would be worse without psych drugs. People with eyeglasses involved in car accident! Should we prevent people from driving with them?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:44 AM

79. Locking

This violates the SoP of this Forum, but could be reposted in Creative Speculation.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink