Okay, lets pretend that everything you say is entirely dispositive on its own.
The explanation as to why kids who become spree killers AFTER being put on medication but not BEFORE is? (1. Coincidence. 2. Statistical probability. 3. Didn’t actually happen. Those are the most popular defense arguments.)
You have to be careful about who is and who is not currently taking SSRIs at the time of their shootings. Withdrawal from SSRIs is considered an even MORE dangerous time. Although the class was original submitted to the FDA as having ‘no addictive qualities’ it became imperical within a decade that you couldn’t stop taking them because of the withdrawal symptoms. Would Dylan Klebold have killed a bunch of stranger in the next few years had he NOT been on Luvox? Can’t say. But we know for sure that he was put on Luvox and we know he did shoot all those people.
Was it the only factor? Of course not. That would be as irrational as saying that it was NOT a factor.
I remember when Ritalin got converted into from a drug used to treat seniors with dimentia to a cure for over active kids. We also were told that there were no long term effects and no addiction problems. And now we have a generation of males who are adult age but have developmental problems because they spent their developing years on a Sch II drug. But the Ritalin is no longer in their system. And that doesn’t mitigate the damage to their ability to process information or duplicate reality around them.
If I’m going to trial, I like my odds on this streak. And because the media didn’t report on the last shooter in Omaha being on drugs yet doesn’t yet interrupt the streak. It just means that we don’t yet know which drugs he was on. And honestly, I haven’t been spending any time looking for it. I’ve spent more time corresponding with you that I have looking into that last shooting since I already know what happened from having done this before. If something miraculously different comes up, I will gladly take it under advisement.
As to your argument about prior deliberated acts prior to he crime, I think this is a good argument for not prescribing these drugs to people (especially children) who have violent ideation or histories. Don’t you? If we can see that people who were previously violent can get even more violent when introduced to or removed from SSRIs, wouldn’t any responsible physician avoid prescribing them? Of course, responsible physicians would need to have responsible information from their drug reps in order to form those decisions.
Vioxx was a great drug except for all the dying patients. Bextra was also very effective as long as it didn’t kill you. And I would bet that with better screening, those drugs could be administered with very small risks. But I don’t hear anybody saying that about SSRIs.
As to my resume, I’m presume you are not pretending to express disbelief in things I’ve personally seen on done myself. And considering that I’ve never posted a resume on FR or anywhere else on the web I’m not sure what you think you are saying by referencing it. Is this the point where you accuse me of being in the pocket of the trial lawyers? Or being a Scientologist or a Homeopath? Knock yourself out, it’s already been done in this thread.
I’m not pretending there is some magical cure to violent people here or that they should be put in a retreat where they can sing Kumbayah. But I also don’t want to see them put in stressful situations where that problem will likely be exploded or put them on drugs which will remove the subjects ability to perceive reality.
Good post.
Don’t you love all the scientology smears, as tho scientologists are the only people who see these drugs as a problem ?
This is a myth.
Only one-third of the attackers had ever been seen by a mental health professional, and only one-fifth had been diagnosed with a mental disorder. Substance abuse problems were also not prevalent. “However, most attackers showed some history of suicidal attempts or thoughts, or a history of feeling extreme depression or desperation.” Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures.
Another myth that is the idea that school violence is rampant. Your claim that SSRI usage causes violence would seem to require an uptick in school violence corresponding to the increased usage of SSRIs. The facts say otherwise. Same source.
In fact, school shootings are extremely rare. Even including the more common violence that is gang-related or dispute-related, only 12 to 20 homicides a year occur in the 100,000 schools in the U.S. In general, school assaults and other violence have dropped by nearly half in the past decade.Although the class was original submitted to the FDA as having ‘no addictive qualities’ it became imperical within a decade that you couldn’t stop taking them because of the withdrawal symptoms. Would Dylan Klebold have killed a bunch of stranger in the next few years had he NOT been on Luvox? Can’t say. But we know for sure that he was put on Luvox and we know he did shoot all those people.
A) Withdrawal symptoms is a sign of addiction potential, but no guarantor of such. B) Dylan Klebold did not take Luvox, that was Eric Harris. Dylan Klebold was not on an SSRI. C) It is ridiculous to say that one "cannot stop taking an SSRI" simply because there are withdrawal symptoms. You simply titrate down the dose to get off them. The SNRIs (Cymbalta and Effexor) seem to be harder to abrubtly discontinue than the SSRIs. D) If it was "imperical" that the SSRIs are addictive, why hasn't the FDA added that to their labels? Probably because they're not. If they were addictive, they'd have to be scheduled. Which, of course, they are not.
We also were told that there were no long term effects and no addiction problems.
You're comparing a Class II Narcotic with a non-scheduled product. Apples and walnuts.
Of course, responsible physicians would need to have responsible information from their drug reps in order to form those decisions.
Tell it to the physicians. Probably 25% of the doctors are interested in getting any information from the reps other than where they spent vacation and how their kids are doing. That's both doctors and reps fault. Both have performed in these relationships to the lowest expectations of each other. The FDA restrictions on what a rep can and cannot discuss do not help. And the crush of managed care on a doctor limits his/her interactions with anyone who is not making him/her money.
And because the media didn’t report on the last shooter in Omaha being on drugs yet doesn’t yet interrupt the streak. It just means that we don’t yet know which drugs he was on.
I'll simply note that you ignored that neither Dylan Klebold or Cho Seung Hui were on antidepressants.
If we can see that people who were previously violent can get even more violent when introduced to or removed from SSRIs, wouldn’t any responsible physician avoid prescribing them?
Do you think that physicians are that irresponsible? Perhaps, just perhaps, thousands of physicians have prescribed millions of SSRIs for exactly the opposite reason. That most people who have depression are helped by these drugs. I am not yet so cynical that I believe that doctors are simply throwing out SSRIs for no reason. The doctors I know are a bit more patient-focused than that. Plus, 95% of them (probably higher) never make a thin dime from the SSRI manufacturers (unless you want to count the pens, the notepads and the pizza brought in for lunch as payment - rolls eyes).
But I also don’t want to see them put in stressful situations where that problem will likely be exploded or put them on drugs which will remove the subjects ability to perceive reality.
This is a bit different from what you have posited to this point. It is my understanding that the atypical anti-psychotics (Risperdal, Geodon, Abilify, et. al.) do cause patients to perceive in a completely different manner. The SSRIs do not seem to do this. They do elevate the "feel good" (serotonin) so that the patient feels better more of the time. Simplification, yes, but points in the right way. Do I think SSRIs are overprescribed? Absolutely. Is that the doctor's fault? Probably not, in the main. Do SSRIs help some people "feel better" when they probably shouldn't? Um...yeah. Are they the cause of a school shooting? Nope. Definitively.