CNN Wants to Profile White Men for Shootings

xerrofoot wrote:

J/C: Shut up, bitch. Gardner's beard, you're like a yappy little dog that needs to be kicked.

And I'm still more eloquent than you. I love that you resort to name-calling and asserting your own perceived dominance when faced with more than twenty words. If you want to actually impress me, however, you're going to have to string together something a little more creatively insulting.

'Shut up, bitch'. Hee.

Jay/Cris wrote:

And I'm still more eloquent than you.

This message brought to you by Captain Obvious.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Rabid Badger wrote:

V3NOM, he's known he's been blocked for going on a year or longer. And he's STILL posting. I wouldn't even know what he was saying if other people didn't keep quoting him. It's not like I can block everyone.

Hold the phone.

What?

Are you for real right now? Did you really think that Mikey would go away if you blocked him? You do realize Mikey has a bigger fanbase than you do, right? Secondly, now it's the fault of the board's entire membership that you're still bothered by Mikey, simply because you absolutely and adamantly refuse to take him with a grain of salt when he addresses you? And really, the way you go on and on and on about how you've blocked Mikey, seriously, that is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. You realize you're the one who can't handle him, right, not the other way around, right? Sure, blocking somebody is your own prerogative, but stop treating it as some sort of moral victory, because it's not: you felt the need to shut up an opposing voice because you couldn't handle what he was telling you, which is dangerously close to the standard don't like, don't read-argument.

So, for the love of God, if you want to ignore Mikey? Actually ignore Mikey, instead of telling us how you're ignoring Mikey while addressing him. Also, stop blaming the board for the fact that you take yourself so absurdly seriously. We're not here to cater to your needs.

For fuck's sake.

OH JESUS THANK YOU.

seriously

i've got ppl blocked and i don't give a fuck if someone else quotes them it's actually easier to scroll past shit in a quote than the raw post

I realize the thread has kind of moved beyond this, but it's one of my pet issues so I'm gonna hark on it anyway.

Penguin wrote:

I don't think an outright ban is in order, but stricter guidelines on how to handle them would be helpful. Especially since a lot of the psychotic episodes seem to happen in the middle of changing prescriptions and dosages. Combination of withdrawal/getting slammed with a shitload of new SSRI drugs does weird things to the brain.

There was an incident awhile back when a kid took his class hostage until he just snapped out of it in the middle of it. No one was hurt, fortunately. His dad's suing the drug company. Or sued, I'm not sure how long ago that was.

A more sensible, measured approach is in order. Because as weird, dangerous, and often tragic as these incidents are, there are a lot more people who honestly need these drugs.

That incident sounds like a classic example of akathisia, which is actually fairly common in people taking psychoactive medications. Those types of incidents are on the rise.

I'm not against psychoactive medication entirely--in specific settings, certain classes of drugs can be useful in the short-term and anyone taking them absolutely needs to be monitored. But they're way, way overprescribed.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, the pharmaceutical industry is profitable because they produce a product people are willing to pay for (ruggers need aspirin, goddamnit), and kindergartners get shot because autistic people are a fucking menace.

To imply that pharmaceutical companies are the underlying reason behind shootings either makes you a brilliant troll or a dangerously insane human being.

No, the pharmaceutical industry is profitable because they overcharge for their products like it's going out of style, combined with direct-to-consumer advertising.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I do love the assumption that all mass shooters are a) mentally ill b) on drugs.

A) What else would you call someone who murders a bunch of defenseless bystanders? An overzealous proponent of population control?
B) Actually it's not an assumption, it's true. Basically every mass shooting, and tons of single homicides and incidences of violence over the past couple decades have been tied to psychoactive medication.

Owlish wrote:

No, the pharmaceutical industry is profitable because they overcharge for their products like it's going out of style, combined with direct-to-consumer advertising.

If they were overcharging, no one would buy their product.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Owlish wrote:

No, the pharmaceutical industry is profitable because they overcharge for their products like it's going out of style, combined with direct-to-consumer advertising.

If they were overcharging, no one would buy their product.

In a perfect world, Mikey. lol I work in a pharmacy, and every day I see people on fixed or declining incomes shell out literally hundreds of dollars for medication that their doctors tell them they need. When there's no cheaper alternative, people don't have the choice.

^ it really depends on the meds, but yeah, when one company comes up with a new formula they have a certain amount of time that only they can sell it and they sell at way over cost because they can. In theory this is to re-coop their R and D money, but, you know, capitalism. Once that time passes generics become available at a more reasonable price, but bigger companies will try and sell their product at the price they want with their name recognition and/or their relationship with medical care providers if they can. The fact that most people are not paying for their drug directly, but rather pay for them through their insurance premiums, makes it easier to in some ways to pull this off. I would still be taking Lexipro if had not gotten my insurance taken away because it did not cost me anything more directly. After it became a direct cost I did some digging and discovered that the older version of basically the same drug was available as a generic and far cheaper.

As far as whether or not any given person needs any given med, well, we can bitch all we want about how expensive medications are, but throwing drugs at a problem is much cheaper than spending the time of highly trained and very well paid medical professionals. Can you afford to spend several hundred dollars looking for a second opinion when you have no concrete reason to believe that your meds are unnecessary? Can you afford to go to therapy every week instead of just blindly taking pills? Can you afford to visit the doctor over and over until you get meds that actually work? Can you afford to eat the right foods and take the right vitamins and get the correct kinds of exercise to treat/ prevent your problems medication free? I have had chronic pain in my dominant arm/wrist for well over a year now and it would be way cheaper to just throw pain meds at it until I can no longer feel my extremities than paying out the nose for physical therapy, vitamin supplements, health food, and visits to a half dozen different kinds of doctors. Insurance is far more likely to cover a 'scrip than a visit to a soft tissue ^ it really depends on the meds, but yeah, when one company comes up with a new formula they have a certain amount of time that only they can sell it and they sell at way over cost because they can. In theory this is to re-coop their R and D money, but, you know, capitalism. Once that time passes generics become available at a more reasonable price, but bigger companies will try and sell their product at the price they want with their name recognition and/or their relationship with medical care providers if they can. The fact that most people are not paying for their drug directly, but rather pay for them through their insurance premiums, makes it easier to in some ways to pull this off. I would still be taking Lexipro if had not gotten my insurance taken away because it did not cost me anything more directly. After it became a direct cost I did some digging and discovered that the older version of basically the same drug was available as a generic and far cheaper.

As far as whether or not any given person needs any given med, well, we can bitch all we want about how expensive medications are, but throwing drugs at a problem is much cheaper than spending the time of highly trained and very well paid medical professionals. Can you afford to spend several hundred dollars looking for a second opinion when you have no concrete reason to believe that your meds are unnecessary? Can you afford to go to therapy every week instead of just blindly taking pills? Can you afford to visit the doctor over and over until you get meds that actually work? Can you afford to eat the right foods and take the right vitamins and get the correct kinds of exercise to treat/ prevent your problems medication free? I have had chronic pain in my dominant arm/wrist for well over a year now and it would be way cheaper to just throw pain meds at it until I can no longer feel my extremities than paying out the nose for physical therapy, vitamin supplements, health food, and visits to a half dozen different kinds of doctors. Insurance is far more likely to cover a 'scrip than a visit to a soft tissue specialist. So, yes, drugs get over-prescribed quite often.

I could go on about how fucked our health care system is, but my point is basically that the pharm industry may well be as corrupt as any other major industry, but it not really the only or even the main culprit in this mess. More importantly, that does not somehow translate into "all drugs are lies!"

Owlish wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

I do love the assumption that all mass shooters are a) mentally ill b) on drugs.

A) What else would you call someone who murders a bunch of defenseless bystanders? An overzealous proponent of population control?

Me on the last fucking page wrote:

so like i think something else to keep in mind is that there's a difference between mental illness which produces/results in an altered state of consciousness e.g. schizophrenia, depression, psychosis etc and other condtions like psychopathy and sadism where the person appears to be wired differently (complete lack of empathy, sexually aroused by violence etc.) to "normals" and the jury's still out as to whether there's a biological/genetic cause or if it's down to nurture and whether people like that can be helped

also don't forget that some people are just angry jerks who think that nobody cares about them and their (petty) problems so why should they care about anyone else, hell shoot all those fuckers and make the world sorry they ignored me etc

all those men who murder their wives/girlfriends/children because "that bitch isn't leaving me (and taking the kids) i'll kill us all first" are not all mentally ill, sorry

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

please at least try to disguise your functional illiteracy

Quote :

B) Actually it's not an assumption, it's true. Basically every mass shooting, and tons of single homicides and incidences of violence over the past couple decades have been tied to psychoactive medication.

BUT WAIT I THOUGHT MENTAL ILLNESS CAUSED SHOOTINGS

ps what about all the single homicides and incidences of violence over the past couple of decades that haven't been tied to psychoactive medication

or mass killings by terrorists in northern ireland for example

EDIT: OH ALSO what about all the people with diagnosed mental illnesses who are taking prescribed psychiatric medication who don't go around shooting up the place

Quote :

B) Actually it's not an assumption, it's true. Basically every mass shooting, and tons of single homicides and incidences of violence over the past couple decades have been tied to psychoactive medication.

Correlation is not causation. You can't declare this a truth when there are so many other factors going into this.

Owlish wrote:

B) Actually it's not an assumption, it's true. Basically every mass shooting, and tons of single homicides and incidences of violence over the past couple decades have been tied to psychoactive medication.

So how do you explain all the violence that took place before the development of psychiatric meds? As any student of history can tell you, people have been killing each other throughout our existence.

Owlish wrote:

V3N0M wrote:

How about banning the medications all these shooters happen to be on (that make them suicidal in the first place) instead?

I'll drink to that. All medication does is make them detached at best (and violent at worst) and placates everyone around the shooter without actually addressing the problems. There's a reason that pharma industry's profits are riding high while kindergarteners are being massacred.

Mentally ill people are more likely to be murdered than to commit murder, and when I say, "murder," I'm including spree shootings. Adam Lanza was unusual; they're combing his genome to find out why but all I know is that his photos up fuzzy memories of papers I've read on Fetal Anticonvulsant Syndrome. The nose, in particular. Speaking of psychiatric medications, he was taking none. Most spree shooters aren't taking anything when they go off. And dammit, meds aren't copping out of therapy. They don't always make you detached. I chose Lamictal above all the mood stabilizers--I was a depressed little thing diagnosed with bipolar disorder after divulging what happened to my inner after they gave me prednisone in 2002--to remedy feelings of detachment I'd already had. Worked like a charm. Thank you, Dr. Google, for telling me all about depersonalization disorder.

As for the rate of violence in mental illness, mentally ill people in general are disproportionately violent, but the correlation disappears once you control for the ridiculous overlap in prevalence between mental illness and substance abuse.

There is one mental illness linked to crime, and it's not a psychotic disorder. It's not a mood disorder, either. It's antisocial personality disorder. The way it's defined these days, almost every prison inmate has this. When you narrow the definition to one in use when it was called psychopathy and it wasn't forbidden to include subjective symptoms, almost none of them do. Did you know that the most violent schizophrenics overwhelmingly met the criteria for ASPD before the first psychotic episode and that there's no relationship between their psychosis and their violence?

For some reason, the media don't bring it up when a spree shooting happens; it's always, "blah, blah, psychotic, blah, blah."

I'd give you links, but I've been here less than a week.

Quote :

For some reason, the media don't bring it up when a spree shooting happens; it's always, "blah, blah, ASSAULT WEAPONS, blah, blah."

fixed. You're welcome.

Cyberwulf wrote:

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

What a thoughtful, articulate response.

Cyberwulf wrote:

so like i think something else to keep in mind is that there's a difference between mental illness which produces/results in an altered state of consciousness e.g. schizophrenia, depression, psychosis etc and other condtions like psychopathy and sadism where the person appears to be wired differently (complete lack of empathy, sexually aroused by violence etc.) to "normals" and the jury's still out as to whether there's a biological/genetic cause or if it's down to nurture and whether people like that can be helped

also don't forget that some people are just angry jerks who think that nobody cares about them and their (petty) problems so why should they care about anyone else, hell shoot all those fuckers and make the world sorry they ignored me etc

all those men who murder their wives/girlfriends/children because "that bitch isn't leaving me (and taking the kids) i'll kill us all first" are not all mentally ill, sorry

Quote :

ps what about all the single homicides and incidences of violence over the past couple of decades that haven't been tied to psychoactive medication

or mass killings by terrorists in northern ireland for example

I quoted, and was responding to, your comment about mass shooting specifically, not all violence in general. Obviously there's a difference between domestic violence, terrorism, and mass shooting in which there is no discernible motivation. I'm not going to waste time trying to explain the differences, because if you can't see it then shit, I can't help you.

Cyberwulf wrote:

BUT WAIT I THOUGHT MENTAL ILLNESS CAUSED SHOOTINGS

Why hello, straw man. I may be demonizing one particular treatment of mental illness, but that doesn't mean I'm demonizing mental illness itself. Quite the opposite, I think the pharmaceutical industry preys upon the mentally ill, and upon anyone who suffers any type of mental disorder in their lifetime, and that's a fucking lot of people. The medical community has had revelations in the past that their 'brilliant' scientific treatments were actually horrific and counterproductive and psychoactive medications are just one more notch on the bedpost, so to speak.

Quote :

EDIT: OH ALSO what about all the people with diagnosed mental illnesses who are taking prescribed psychiatric medication who don't go around shooting up the place

Yeah, there's plenty of them. Just because they're not committing horrific acts of violence doesn't mean medication is helping. Why do you think there's a fucking blackbox warning of increased risk of suicide on medications that are supposed to be antidepressants? Why do you think every antidepressant ever is contraindicated for people under 18? There's no magical switch in your brain which turns people from children to adults and suddenly antidepressants work like they're supposed to. It's because big pharma hasn't been able to slice and dice the statistics on children like they have in adults (which is one thing I will credit the FDA for, however miniscule an accomplishment it may be).

Lady Anne wrote:

So how do you explain all the violence that took place before the development of psychiatric meds? As any student of history can tell you, people have been killing each other throughout our existence.

I'm not arguing that all violence ever is caused by drugs. Obviously that's a stupid argument, because as you said violence has existed basically from the dawn of time. My argument is that psychoactive medication increases the chances that people who are otherwise not inclined toward violence at all are driven to commit acts of violence because of their medication. Like the incident Penguin posted, in which the shooter "snapped out of it" in the middle of shooting. Someone with motivation for violence doesn't suddenly stop and wake up, but people who are on medication do.

StrungOutOnLife wrote:

Speaking of psychiatric medications, he [Adam Lanza] was taking none.

The toxicology report won't be released for several months, so that claim is completely baseless.

StrungOutOnLife wrote:

Most spree shooters aren't taking anything when they go off.

Also not true, and I've already posted a link which refutes that claim.

As to the rest of your post...I'm really curious as to where you're getting information from, so please do post links when you can.

Owlish wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

This is a thing of beauty.

Owlish wrote:

I quoted, and was responding to, your comment about mass shooting specifically

Cyberwulf wrote:

so like i think something else to keep in mind is that there's a difference between mental illness which produces/results in an altered state of consciousness e.g. schizophrenia, depression, psychosis etc and other condtions like psychopathy and sadism where the person appears to be wired differently (complete lack of empathy, sexually aroused by violence etc.) to "normals" and the jury's still out as to whether there's a biological/genetic cause or if it's down to nurture and whether people like that can be helped

also don't forget that some people are just angry jerks who think that nobody cares about them and their (petty) problems so why should they care about anyone else, hell shoot all those fuckers and make the world sorry they ignored me etc

yeah i noticed you didn't address this at all

remember when you asked me what i'd call someone who goes on spree killings

and i showed you where i'd said that very thing

i was hurrrrring at your lack of ability to read, dipshit

Owlish wrote:

Obviously there's a difference between domestic violence, terrorism, and mass shooting in which there is no discernible motivation

except you're the one who mentioned "tons of single incidences of violence and homicides"

btw are you admitting here that some mass shootings do have discernible motivations

you know like the guy who shot up that gym full of women because bitches wouldn't fuck him

Owlish wrote:

Just because they're not committing horrific acts of violence doesn't mean medication is helping.

you're the one postulating this incredibly strong link between all the different types of medication prescribed for mental illness and mass shootings my dear, hence why i brought up all the people who are taking medication for mental illness who don't commit mass killings

fact is you've got no hard evidence that it's the medication, the underlying condition, or how the two interact that causes a mass shooting

not to mention you're excluding the angry jerks/psychopaths/sadists from the equation

V3N0M wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

This is a thing of beauty.

V3N0M stop trying to make Owlish the front end of your and Clopper's voluntary human centipede project

I agreed with Owlish on ONE THING. Calm your tits.

Owlish wrote:

Just because they're not committing horrific acts of violence doesn't mean medication is helping. Why do you think there's a fucking blackbox warning of increased risk of suicide on medications that are supposed to be antidepressants?

Because fucking with someone's brain chemistry is not something you can fine-tune to guaranteed results, I guess?

Thing is we have this thread, where people are arguing that medication affects people in horrible and unpredictable ways; and we have another where (different) people argue that meds were basically proven to be no more than placebos (can we merge them and watch a nuclear meltdown?!).

The placebo faction basically ignored me saying that I noticed an effect, and very much so (I had SSRI withdrawal syndrome without knowing such a thing exists. Just my imagination? I don't think so). I do believe that placebos can be a powerful thing, and I also recognize (and witnessed) that some medication affects some people in a bad way. Can we please acknowledge the fact though that there are people out there who genuinely aren't cheated or taken advantage of by their doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, people whose lives are honestly and drastically improved, and that Venom's idea of just banning all medication would really fuck them over?

grmblfjx wrote:

Can we please acknowledge the fact though that there are people out there who genuinely aren't cheated or taken advantage of by their doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, people whose lives are honestly and drastically improved, and that Venom's idea of just banning all medication would really fuck them over?

Nah, it's all clearly a vast fucking conspiracy to enrich pharmaceutical companies who are really just snake-oil peddling quacks. And rob good, honest, Americans of their guns into the bargain. I'm glad we have Owlish here to teach us the former and V3NOM to teach us the latter.

That makes more sense, obviously.

Quote :

Thing is we have this thread, where people are arguing that medication affects people in horrible and unpredictable ways; and we have another where (different) people argue that meds were basically proven to be no more than placebos (can we merge them and watch a nuclear meltdown?!).

Weed has never caused someone to shoot up a school and it certainly isn't a placebo.

Everyone cure your depression with cannabis. Problem solved.

*Your personal experience with cannabis and depression may vary.

grmblfjx wrote:

Can we please acknowledge the fact though that there are people out there who genuinely aren't cheated or taken advantage of by their doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, people whose lives are honestly and drastically improved, and that Venom's idea of just banning all medication would really fuck them over?

If by "we" you mean everyone who is not a giant fucking idoit/ troll.

Srsly guys you can pry my SSRIs outta my cold dead hands is all im sayin.

/\


This so hard. One day without my meds and I can barely function.

Books:
Let Them Eat Prozac by David Healy and website
Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker
Talking Back to Prozac by Peter Breggin and website
Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Murder by Peter Breggin
Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and A Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial by Alison Bass

Quote :

Seroxat and Prozac 'can make people homicidal'

Doctor who found suicide risk says experts ignoring danger

Sarah Boseley, health editor
The Guardian, Monday 20 September 2004 21.21 EDT

Evidence that antidepressant drugs like Seroxat and Prozac could make people homicidal is being ignored by the body responsible for regulating medicines in the UK, a leading expert said yesterday.

The charge came from David Healy, an expert on psychiatric drugs from north Wales whose warnings that the drugs could cause suicide prompted a major inquiry. That investigation, by an expert working group of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority, led to the entire class of drugs except Prozac being banned last year from use in children.

The expert working group has gone on to look at suicides in adults taking any of the drugs known as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). But Dr Healy says that they are overlooking very important data relating to a set of further dangerous side-effects.

Dr Healy, director of the north Wales department of psychological medicine, says he has seen data from the clinical trials that show even some healthy volunteers - people with no illness at all volunteering to take part in the earliest safety trials of the drugs - became unaccountably aggressive. Their reaction is coded as "hostile" which can include homicidal behaviour and serious aggression.

"I think there is very clear evidence for all of the SSRI group of drugs that in addition to making people suicidal, they can make people homicidal or seriously aggressive and the data have been sitting in the MHRA's files on this issue," he said.

"It is there for children across a range of different problems, it is there for healthy volunteers and a range of adults and the MHRA has paid no heed to this."

The healthy volunteer trials of the British drug Seroxat took place in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Of the 271 fit and well individuals, three became hostile, compared with none on an inactive placebo - a rate of 1.1%, which although small could translate to very many cases among the 50m worldwide who have taken Seroxat over the last 15 years. (continued at page)

Quote :

Even more suicide attempts in clinical trials with paroxetine randomised against placebo.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:

Following our previous publication we have received critical comments to our conclusions as well as new data that are strengthening our findings.
RESULTS:

With the new data, 11 suicide attempts among patients on paroxetine against 1 among patients on placebo, we found with a Bayesian technique that the posterior probability that medication with paroxetine is associated with an increased intensity per year of a suicide attempt is from 0.98 to 0.99, depending on the prior. We found that the comment to our article by GSK representatives contained errors, misunderstanding and unwillingness to accept Bayesian principles in the analysis of clinical trials.
CONCLUSION:

We were in our previous publication, with preliminary data and a Bayesian approach, able to raise a concern that suicide attempts might be connected with the use of paroxetine. This suspicion has now been confirmed.

Quote :

Seroxat and the suppression of clinical trial data: regulatory failure and the uses of legal ambiguity.
Abstract

This article critically evaluates the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's announcement, in March 2008, that GlaxoSmithKline would not face prosecution for deliberately withholding trial data, which revealed not only that Seroxat was ineffective at treating childhood depression but also that it increased the risk of suicidal behaviour in this patient group. The decision not to prosecute followed a four and a half year investigation and was taken on the grounds that the law at the relevant time was insufficiently clear. This article assesses the existence of significant gaps in the duty of candour which had been assumed to exist between drugs companies and the regulator, and reflects upon what this episode tells us about the robustness, or otherwise, of the UK's regulation of medicines.

Quote :

Manufacturer admits increase in suicidal behaviour in patients taking paroxetine
GlaxoSmithKline announced last week that they had found an increase in suicidal behaviour in adults taking paroxetine (Paxil/Seroxat) compared with placebo. The conclusion was based on an analysis of patients aged 18-64 years in clinical trials.

The researchers found that 0.32% (11/3455) of people taking paroxetine for depression attempted suicide compared with 0.05% (1/1978) of depressed patients taking placebo (odds ratio 6.7, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 149.4; P=0.058). One person in the paroxetine group successfully killed themselves. GlaxoSmithKline said the data should be interpreted with caution and that the “overall risk-benefit of paroxetine in the treatment of adult patients with MDD [major depressive disease] remains positive.”

The Glaxo study confirms the suggested link between suicidal behaviour and antidepressants in adults. In October 2004, the US Food and Drug Administration ordered drug companies to place a “black box” warning on all antidepressants, saying that suicidal behaviour might increase in children and adolescents taking the drugs. They requested all manufacturers of antidepressants to examine their data for a similar link among adults. The FDA is undertaking its own pooled analysis of adults taking antidepressants and is expected to release its results as soon as this summer. (continued at page)

Quote :

Two cases of zolpidem-associated homicide.

Abstract

Zolpidem is the most commonly prescribed medication for the short-term treatment of insomnia. Adverse reactions include nightmares, confusion, and memory deficits. Reported rare adverse neuropsychiatric reactions include sensory distortions such as hallucinations. Previous research has identified 4 factors that may place a patient at increased risk of zolpidem-associated psychotic or delirious reactions: (1) concomitant use of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), (2) female gender, (3) advanced age, and (4) zolpidem doses of 10 mg or higher. In this article, 2 cases are presented in which individuals killed their spouses and claimed total or partial amnesia. Neither individual had a history of aggressive behavior. Both had concomitantly taken 10 mg or more of zolpidem in addition to an SSRI (paroxetine).

Quote :

Emergence of Intense Suicidal Preoccupation During Fluoxetine Treatment (pdf link)

Six depressed patients free of recent serious suicidal ideation developed intense, violent suicidal preoccupation after 2—7 weeks of fluoxetine treatment. This state persisted for as little as 3 days to as long as 3 months after discontinuation of fluoxetine. None of these patients had ever experienced a similar state during treatment with any other psychotropic drug.
(Am J Psychiatry 1990; 147:207-210)

Quote :

The Underlying Cause of Suicides and Homicides with SSRI Antidepressants:
Is It the Drugs, the Doctors, or the Drug Companies?

Reports of unusual, severe reactions with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant drugs (SSRIs) emerged soon after the first SSRI, Prozac, was introduced in 1988. One of my own patients, a woman with a mild depressive disorder and no history of major psychiatric symptoms, became psychotic after just three days on Prozac. Another woman, a highly successful attorney, developed such severe panic attacks that she couldn't work. Such cases were reported so frequently that Congress held hearings on the issue in the early 1990s. But because the hearings got no further than arguing whether SSRIs cause suicidal and homicidal behavior or not, and never looked at the underlying causes, nothing was accomplished.

I have never doubted that SSRIs (Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro, Luvox, Effexor, Sarafem) can provoke impulsive, violent behavior. Now, sixteen years after the first reports, British regulatory authorities have acted against the use of SSRIs in children because of an increased incidence of suicide. This forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to take a second look. In early February 2004, a FDA advisory committee heard powerful testimony from bereaved parents and medical experts and issued a call for stronger warnings on the labels of these drugs. The FDA is considering it.

Quote :

SSRIs associated with severe violence in a small number of individuals

Use of one class of antidepressant drugs, the SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), may be associated with severe violence in a small number of individuals say the authors of paper published in PLoS Medicine.

David Healy and David Menkes from Cardiff University, and Andrew Herxheimer from the UK Cochrane Centre, used a variety of sources to look at this association.

The sources used were data on paroxetine presented to the UK Committee on Safety of Medicines Expert Working Group by its maker, GlaxoSmithKline; data from United Kingdom Drug Safety Research Unit (DSRU) prescription-event monitoring studies on paroxetine and fluoxetine; legal cases in which the authors have given evidence; and e-mails from 1,374 patients in response to a BBC TV Panorama programme on paroxetine broadcast in 2002.

The association of antidepressant use and self directed violence, such as suicide, is not new. The authors note that "Some regulators, such as the Canadian regulators, have also referred to risks of treatment-induced activation leading to both self-harm and harm to others" and the "United States labels for all antidepressants as of August 2004 note that 'anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric'".

The current paper in PLoS Medicine focuses on the SSRIs, which are claimed to correct a chemical imbalance in the brain involving a lack of serotonin. Of the SSRIs, paroxetine was primarily studied for two reasons. First, the authors had better access to information about illustrative medico-legal cases for this drug than for other antidepressants. Second, the manufacturer of paroxetine, GlaxoSmithKline, has submitted data on "hostile" episodes associated with paroxetine to the British regulatory authorities.

Quote :

Suicidality, violence and mania caused by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs): A review and analysis (pdf link)

Abstract. Evidence from many sources confirms that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) commonly cause or exacerbate
a wide range of abnormal mental and behavioral conditions. These adverse drug reactions include the following
overlapping clinical phenomena: a stimulant profile that ranges from mild agitation to manic psychoses, agitated depression,
obsessive preoccupations that are alien or uncharacteristic of the individual, and akathisia. Each of these reactions can worsen
the individual’s mental condition and can result in suicidality, violence, and other forms of extreme abnormal behavior. Evidence
for these reactions is found in clinical reports, controlled clinical trials, and epidemiological studies in children and
adults. Recognition of these adverse drug reactions and withdrawal from the offending drugs can prevent misdiagnosis and the
worsening of potentially severe iatrogenic disorders. These findings also have forensic application in criminal, malpractice, and
product liability cases.

So I had a much longer response to this typed up and the internet ate it. :/ May edit this post when I have more time.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Owlish wrote:

I quoted, and was responding to, your comment about mass shooting specifically

Cyberwulf wrote:

so like i think something else to keep in mind is that there's a difference between mental illness which produces/results in an altered state of consciousness e.g. schizophrenia, depression, psychosis etc and other condtions like psychopathy and sadism where the person appears to be wired differently (complete lack of empathy, sexually aroused by violence etc.) to "normals" and the jury's still out as to whether there's a biological/genetic cause or if it's down to nurture and whether people like that can be helped

also don't forget that some people are just angry jerks who think that nobody cares about them and their (petty) problems so why should they care about anyone else, hell shoot all those fuckers and make the world sorry they ignored me etc

yeah i noticed you didn't address this at all

remember when you asked me what i'd call someone who goes on spree killings

and i showed you where i'd said that very thing

i was hurrrrring at your lack of ability to read, dipshit

I didn't address this because your post was all over the place. What are you saying, that schizophrenics commit mass murder? That psychopaths commit mass murder? That regular old assholes commit mass murder? All three? And touching on the biological causes of mental illness, saying some people are "wired differently" calls into question the concept of mental illness as illness, which is tangential to the subject at hand.

Oh, and great job making fun of mental retardation. That's really going to make me take you seriously when talking about mental illness.

Quote :

Owlish wrote:

Obviously there's a difference between domestic violence, terrorism, and mass shooting in which there is no discernible motivation

except you're the one who mentioned "tons of single incidences of violence and homicides"

btw are you admitting here that some mass shootings do have discernible motivations

you know like the guy who shot up that gym full of women because bitches wouldn't fuck him

Owlish wrote:

Just because they're not committing horrific acts of violence doesn't mean medication is helping.

you're the one postulating this incredibly strong link between all the different types of medication prescribed for mental illness and mass shootings my dear, hence why i brought up all the people who are taking medication for mental illness who don't commit mass killings

fact is you've got no hard evidence that it's the medication, the underlying condition, or how the two interact that causes a mass shooting

Ah, here we go. lol There is just as much evidence showing that psychoactive medication harms people as there is evidence that it helps. I can linkdump until the cows come home, and it's not going to change anyone's opinion. Not to mention there is a significant problem of companies hiding clinical trial data when it comes to psychoactive medication (gee, I wonder why?) But what the hell. I've posted some, and whenever I have more time I'll spam some more.

Hot Cancer wrote:

Nah, it's all clearly a vast fucking conspiracy to enrich pharmaceutical companies who are really just snake-oil peddling quacks.

When it's the former editor of the foremost medical journal in the world telling you that, maybe there's something to it. This isn't a fringe opinion.