Another Big Pharma Success Story

[Pliny]

Another act of random senseless violence with 6 dead in California.

John Zawahri ID'd as California shooter as death told in rampage rises to six

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/death-toll-california-shooting-article-1.1367558#ixzz2Vq3QNvZn

...and the public education system seems to be getting worse as I haven't been able to find what a "death told" is. Imagine that in the headlines???

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/08/us/california-college-gunman/index.html

"Source: Santa Monica gunman previously hospitalized for mental health"

Is there really any reason to debate the actual cause of these events? Shouldn't it be obvious?

[GostHacked]

Interesting that we actually have photos of the suspect in action. But as with many of the mass shootings, it's not the guns that we need to worry about. Mental issues and medication are in the spotlight again.

[kimmy]

Where do you get off blaming this on "big pharma" or tagging it as a "prescription drugs" story?

Neither of your articles gives one shred of evidence that he was using any pharmaceutical product. Did you obtain this information from a news source that you haven't disclosed to us yet, or did you tune in to the Alex Jones show and hear him saying "MASS MURDER SUICIDE PILLS BLAAARRH BIG PHARMA AARRHHH CONSPIRACY" a bunch of times?

Perhaps rather than blaming Big Pharma for this, we should question the merits of a gun licensing system that lets a guy who had been hospitalized for mental health issues and threatening to harm people buy guns.

A firearms licensing system that would let this guy buy guns and ammo is broken and needs to be fixed. Trying to blame it on MASS MURDER SUICIDE PILLS BLAAARRH BIG PHARMA AAHHH is a dodge that misses the real issue.

-k

{Guns don't kill people, pills kill people MASS MURDER SUICIDE PILLS BLAAARRH BIG PHARMA AAHHHHH}

[Pliny]

Where do you get off blaming this on "big pharma" or tagging it as a "prescription drugs" story?

Neither of your articles gives one shred of evidence that he was using any pharmaceutical product. Did you obtain this information from a news source that you haven't disclosed to us yet, or did you tune in to the Alex Jones show and hear him saying "MASS MURDER SUICIDE PILLS BLAAARRH BIG PHARMA AARRHHH CONSPIRACY" a bunch of times?

Perhaps rather than blaming Big Pharma for this, we should question the merits of a gun licensing system that lets a guy who had been hospitalized for mental health issues and threatening to harm people buy guns.

A firearms licensing system that would let this guy buy guns and ammo is broken and needs to be fixed. Trying to blame it on MASS MURDER SUICIDE PILLS BLAAARRH BIG PHARMA AAHHH is a dodge that misses the real issue.

-k

{Guns don't kill people, pills kill people MASS MURDER SUICIDE PILLS BLAAARRH BIG PHARMA AAHHHHH}

Of course kimmy, Mr. Zawahri was completely rational. It all makes sense. He was upset as his parents had gotten a divorce. Sheesh!

It isn't just me saying this about prescription psychotropic drugs, kimmy. You make it seem like I just think these things up all by myself. There is lots of information from very credible sources. Dr. Peter Breggin, Psychologist, Dr. Fred Baughman, Neurologist. Try those for starters.

The question is whether or not this random act of senseless violence would have occurred had he not had the psycho-pharmaceutical drugs? He was just as "ill" before he got them and probably had access to guns so why didn't he do it before? Why do these people commit their crimes after they start taking these prescribed meds. There are warning labels on them as well about possibly causing "violence".

The article I cited from CNN stated he had been committed. IT means he was under the care of a physician, probably a psychiatrist who prescribed some antidepressant or maybe some thorazine and a mix of psychotropic drugs, only the psychiatrist knows. They don't give you vitamins when you are committed.

Go ahead and question the merits of the gun licensing system. Unfortunately, it is difficult, due to doctor/patient privilege, to divulge the medical history of anyone. If asked if they have ever taken psychotropic drugs they can just say no if they really want a gun. If they say yes they won't get one.

It's interesting that if a person has ever been prescribed ritalin they can't join the armed forces in the States.

Guns don't actually affect one's self-determination but pills do. They actually determine behavior.

The analogy of guns not killing people and pills not killing people doesn't work as the pills do affect one's self determined behavior. Guns might make someone feel braver but they don't interfere with the thinking process or ability to perceive reality as drugs do.

Obviously, these drugs are supposed to restore some sense of control over one's self by chasing away depressive moods or balancing moods or elevating moods - is it too much of a stretch to feel they may create some manic events in some people that result in violent behavior. The warnings are on the labels - suicidal ideation, thoughts of violence. So?

You won't hear a lot of the stories regarding these drugs and violence as they are settled before they get to the media with caveats about not speaking to the press. Sad but true. Families of victims usually accept a million or two to keep quiet.

Here is a list of a few more notable settlements out of the last decade they aren't all related to psychotropic drugs in this article though:

taken from:

http://mieuxprevenir.blogspot.ca/2012/07/marketing-settlements-of-big-pharma.html

To get a picture of what's been going on, FiercePharma compiled a list of top marketing settlements that the industry has made in the past 10 years. In total, drug makers have agreed to pay more than $11 billion so far for their misdoings. But the worst may yet be ahead: more than 900 whistleblower lawsuits were filed in the last year alone. Some of the most notable in history include:vii

1. 2012: GlaxoSmithKline to pay $3 billion for illegal marketing of Paxil, Welbutrin and downplaying safety risks of Avandia

2. 2009: Pfizer pays $2.3 billion for marketing fraud related to Bextra, Lyrica and other drugs

3. 2012: Johnson & Johnson will pay anywhere from $1.5 to $2.2 billion for illegal marketing of Risperdal

4. 2012: Abbott Laboratories settles for $1.6 billion for aggressively promoting their seizure drug Depakote for off-label use in elderly dementia patients, despite lacking evidence of safety or effectiveness.

5. 2009: Eli Lilly pays $1.4 billion for promoting Zyprexa for off-label uses, often to children and the elderly.

6. 2011: Merck settles for $950 million to resolve fraudulent marketing allegations related to Vioxx.

7. 2005: Serono (now Merck Serono) paid $704 million after pleading guilty to two felony charges for fraudulent marketing related to a growth hormone to treat wasting in HIV patients.

8. 2007: Purdue Pharma paid $634.5 million for fraudulently misbranding Oxycontin, and suggesting it was less addictive and less abused than other painkillers.

9. 2010: Allergan paid $600 million for aggressively pushing Botox for unapproved uses.

10. 2010: AstraZeneca settled for $520 million for trying to persuade doctors to prescribe its psychotropic drug Seroquel for unapproved uses ranging from Alzheimer's disease and ADHD to sleeplessness and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

11. 2007: Bristol-Myers Squibb paid $515 million for illegally promoting its atypical antipsychotic drug Abilify to kids and seniors

Edited June 11, 2013 by Pliny

[kimmy]

Of course kimmy, Mr. Zawahri was completely rational. It all makes sense. He was upset as his parents had gotten a divorce. Sheesh!

Clearly he's got a history of mental illness. That's a long way from what you're claiming, which is that "big pharma" caused this to happen.

It isn't just me saying this about prescription psychotropic drugs, kimmy. You make it seem like I just think these things up all by myself. There is lots of information from very credible sources. Dr. Peter Breggin, Psychologist, Dr. Fred Baughman, Neurologist. Try those for starters.

The question is whether or not this random act of senseless violence would have occurred had he not had the psycho-pharmaceutical drugs? He was just as "ill" before he got them and probably had access to guns so why didn't he do it before? Why do these people commit their crimes after they start taking these prescribed meds. There are warning labels on them as well about possibly causing "violence".

Yes, there is a slight statistical correlation between psychopharmaceuticals and violence and/or suicide.

There's a much stronger statistical correlation between untreated mental illness and violence and/or suicide.

Nutbars like Alex Jones and the Scientologists and kooks and conspiracy theorists and homepathic quacks and perhaps yourself would focus on an incident like this and say "look! look at all the harm these drugs do!" without stopping to wonder how much harm might be done if people who are presently being treated for mental illness were not using medicines of one kind or another.

It's dark days indeed if every kook with a radio show or every quack with a self-help book to hock is going to have a say in crafting mental health policy.

The article I cited from CNN stated he had been committed. IT means he was under the care of a physician, probably a psychiatrist who prescribed some antidepressant or maybe some thorazine and a mix of psychotropic drugs, only the psychiatrist knows. They don't give you vitamins when you are committed.

Your article said he had been committed and released two years ago. It doesn't say he was on psychopharmaceuticals right now, or even at the time, and makes no claims at all as to whether he was currently under medical care.

You know what the half life of psychopharmaceuticals in the human brain is? It's far less than 2 years. Depending on the drug, it ranges from a few hours to a few days.

It's apparent that you're as expert in the field of psychiatric medicine as you are in relativity and high finance.

-k

[Pliny]

It's apparent that you're as expert in the field of psychiatric medicine as you are in relativity and high finance.

-k

The only thing that's apparent is your fascination with me.

You can't be as shallow in your research as you are and be an expert, kimmy.

I am not at all an expert but you have a way to go to catch up to me.

[Pliny]

Interesting that we actually have photos of the suspect in action. But as with many of the mass shootings, it's not the guns that we need to worry about. Mental issues and medication are in the spotlight again.

Yes. Violence without motive is odd. Drugs are almost always behind these Incidents that lack a motive and are just bizarre. The perpetrator gets nothing out of it and usually shoots himself or gets shot.

Of course those that try to think in terms of a motive, after all everyone has to have a reason to act, find the oddest things to assign blame to, like a parental divorce. As if that would explain it.

The fact is there is no motive, The person has no idea he is doing what he is doing. He is in a drug induced trance it seems.

[Pliny]

Nutbars like Alex Jones and the Scientologists and kooks and conspiracy theorists and homepathic quacks and perhaps yourself would focus on an incident like this and say "look! look at all the harm these drugs do!" without stopping to wonder how much harm might be done if people who are presently being treated for mental illness were not using medicines of one kind or another.

It's dark days indeed if every kook with a radio show or every quack with a self-help book to hock is going to have a say in crafting mental health policy.

-k

I think a lot of harm is done by psychiatrists who tell their patients they have a need for these drugs. I suggest for your edification, Nurse Ratchett, a work by Dr. Thomas Szasz called, "The Manufacture of Madness"

There is no physiological marker for what is termed mental illness, there is no chemical imbalance, there is only the subjective opinion of a practitioner who with his colleagues has voted to name a behavior an illness and publish it in a book Called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. I think DSM V is the latest version.

Often a good physical check up to determine health with anything found being taken care of and with nothing being found that time, coupled with good nutrition and adequate sleep is sufficient to get one through problematic times. Sometimes a complete change of environment may be necessary.

Did you hear what happened to the pig farmers in Alberta? Interesting story. Google it if it pleases you to do so.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Pliny

[Bryan]

How many innocent people need to die before we start taking mental illness seriously as a threat to public safety. If someone really is so ill that taking those drugs is a necessity, that alone should also mean that person is not safe to walk around in society. A diagnosis of sufficient psychosis to necessitate being drugged all the time should also be automatic grounds for them to be committed.

[Argus]

How many innocent people need to die before we start taking mental illness seriously as a threat to public safety. If someone really is so ill that taking those drugs is a necessity, that alone should also mean that person is not safe to walk around in society. A diagnosis of sufficient psychosis to necessitate being drugged all the time should also be automatic grounds for them to be committed.

Do you have any idea what that would cost? My cousin is a paranoid schizophrenic. He used to hear voices threatening to kill him. He's been on anti-psychotic drugs for almost fifteen years now without incident, working and productive. You want people like him to spend all that time in expensive hospitals? The cost would be horrendous and you're also basically locking people away for life when they haven't committed any crime.

[cybercoma]

Do you have any idea what that would cost? My cousin is a paranoid schizophrenic. He used to hear voices threatening to kill him. He's been on anti-psychotic drugs for almost fifteen years now without incident, working and productive. You want people like him to spend all that time in expensive hospitals? The cost would be horrendous and you're also basically locking people away for life when they haven't committed any crime.

Locking them up which is an expense and keeping them from working and being productive which reduces the revenues from which those expenses are paid. People don't think.

[Pliny]

Do you have any idea what that would cost? My cousin is a paranoid schizophrenic. He used to hear voices threatening to kill him. He's been on anti-psychotic drugs for almost fifteen years now without incident, working and productive. You want people like him to spend all that time in expensive hospitals? The cost would be horrendous and you're also basically locking people away for life when they haven't committed any crime.

It is unfortunate that we, mankind that is, has not progressed in the field of the humanities any further than we have in light of the fact that we have technologically surpassed ourselves.

I suppose he has been told he has a chemical imbalance. It doesn't add up to me that there is no test for that and that means it is the expert's "best guess" and not a scientific fact.

I want people like him to understand himself, his experiences and be in full self-determined control of himself. He has absolutely no chance of that while under the influence of these drugs. You might think the drugs give him control of himself. At best they blank-out his thoughts.

How many innocent people need to die before we start taking mental illness seriously as a threat to public safety. If someone really is so ill that taking those drugs is a necessity, that alone should also mean that person is not safe to walk around in society. A diagnosis of sufficient psychosis to necessitate being drugged all the time should also be automatic grounds for them to be committed.

Generally, those with mental problems are not violent. It isn't until they are prescribed psychotropic drugs that they become violent.

There are people called criminals who are violent. They plan their violence and their motive is generally personal gain. But because they have a motive that is apparent they are not considered mentally ill. When they are caught they might claim in court that they are.

[Jeff M]

When an American turns violent he is always close to the tools he needs to make an impression on society. Therein lies the difference between the US and Canada. Canada doesn't think that it's a good idea for violent people to have easy access to guns and handguns especially. The US does.

The obvious solution for the US is to get rid of pharmaceuticals. They infringe on their second amendment rights. Cause guns are wot's gud.

[bush_cheney2004]

When an American turns violent he is always close to the tools he needs to make an impression on society. Therein lies the difference between the US and Canada.

True...one of the first violent things that the Americans did was to impress Great Britain and Canadian loyalists with an armed revolution.

[kimmy]

Drugs are almost always behind these Incidents that lack a motive

Cite?

The fact is there is no motive, The person has no idea he is doing what he is doing. He is in a drug induced trance it seems.

Cite?

I suppose he has been told he has a chemical imbalance. It doesn't add up to me that there is no test for that and that means it is the expert's "best guess" and not a scientific fact.

Taking samples of the brain tissue of living subjects is a tricky thing to do.

I want people like him to understand himself, his experiences and be in full self-determined control of himself. He has absolutely no chance of that while under the influence of these drugs. You might think the drugs give him control of himself. At best they blank-out his thoughts.

I suppose this opinion is the result of your vast experience with the subject.

Generally, those with mental problems are not violent. It isn't until they are prescribed psychotropic drugs that they become violent.

Cite?

There are people called criminals who are violent. They plan their violence and their motive is generally personal gain. But because they have a motive that is apparent they are not considered mentally ill. When they are caught they might claim in court that they are.

You just made that up, right?

I think a lot of harm is done by psychiatrists who tell their patients they have a need for these drugs. I suggest for your edification, Nurse Ratchett, a work by Dr. Thomas Szasz called, "The Manufacture of Madness"

This book was published in 1970. A psychiatry book from 1970 is probably about as authoritative as a computer science book from 1970.

As with your ideas about relativity, you've rejected the views of the vast majority of experts in the field in favor of some black sheep who wrote something that appeals to your particular prejudices.

(If I'm Nurse Ratched, are you Big Chief? I am picturing you smothering Gosthacked with a pillow, throwing a water cooler through the window, and sprinting for freedom.)

Often a good physical check up to determine health with anything found being taken care of and with nothing being found that time, coupled with good nutrition and adequate sleep is sufficient to get one through problematic times. Sometimes a complete change of environment may be necessary.

I gather you got your psychiatry degree from the same prestigious institute where you got your physics degree. (The Pliny College of Pliny?)

Did you hear what happened to the pig farmers in Alberta? Interesting story. Google it if it pleases you to do so.

Googling Alberta pig farmers returns hundreds of thousands of articles; if you have something you'd like me to read you'll have to be more specific.

-k

Edited June 13, 2013 by kimmy

[Pliny]

Cite?

Cite?

Taking samples of the brain tissue of living subjects is a tricky thing to do.

I suppose this opinion is the result of your vast experience with the subject.

Cite?

You just made that up, right?

This book was published in 1970. A psychiatry book from 1970 is probably about as authoritative as a computer science book from 1970.

As with your ideas about relativity, you've rejected the views of the vast majority of experts in the field in favor of some black sheep who wrote something that appeals to your particular prejudices.

(If I'm Nurse Ratched, are you Big Chief? I am picturing you smothering Gosthacked with a pillow, throwing a water cooler through the window, and sprinting for freedom.)

I gather you got your psychiatry degree from the same prestigious institute where you got your physics degree. (The Pliny College of Pliny?)

Googling Alberta pig farmers returns hundreds of thousands of articles; if you have something you'd like me to read you'll have to be more specific.

-k

Actually, Dr. Szasz's book is a timeless statement on the field of Psychiatry and even more pertinent today. Implying it is out of date doesn't help your understanding of the subject. You can poo-poo my citations if you so wish but it doesn't encourage me to make any more.

Yes there are probably thousands of articles on pig farmers. You could narrow it down if you just wanted to read those pertinent to the discussion - the prescribing of psychotropic drugs and their effects. But I don't think you are interested in any more data than you already have.

You are a smart person but these criticisms are beneath you. The points you make I am well aware of. They are the common everyday views of most people. Most people just accept those views but when a subject affects them they do some research. I have had a couple of relatives that spent a better part of their lives committed and died in hospital. I have looked a little deeper than what most people have.

If you have anything new or any thoughts of your own on the subject let me know.

[kimmy]

In this thread you are claiming things as fact which are in fact just your very non-expert opinion with no support whatsoever. That's a valid criticism, whether you believe it to be so or not.

-k

[Pliny]

When an American turns violent he is always close to the tools he needs to make an impression on society. Therein lies the difference between the US and Canada. Canada doesn't think that it's a good idea for violent people to have easy access to guns and handguns especially. The US does.

The obvious solution for the US is to get rid of pharmaceuticals. They infringe on their second amendment rights. Cause guns are wot's gud.

Well, not pharmaceuticals, just psychotropic drugs.

Most Americans and Canadians are not violent. Is there any reason these non-violent people should not have a gun if they so desire? Of course we don't want violent people to have them. It seems Psychiatrists either can't make a determination of who will commit random acts of senseless violence from who won't. I don't pretend I could either but they are the experts and have an abysmal record of keeping them out of schools and movie theatres.

[Pliny]

In this thread you are claiming things as fact which are in fact just your very non-expert opinion with no support whatsoever. That's a valid criticism, whether you believe it to be so or not.

-k

Is that your very expert opinion? I haven't heard anything new from you that I hadn't already heard before. If all you can do is tell me I'm full of it then you haven't got anything.

Just take a fact like reading the side-effects of these psychotropic drugs.

School shootings and movie theatre shootings, if you hear of a seemingly motiveless random act of bizarre senseless violence against innocent people, especially children, Mothers killing their children, drowning them in bathtubs, stabbing them to death, someone severing the head of a passenger on a Greyhound bus,.those kinds of things, and then, in a lot of cases kill themselves, you can be pretty sure they were or have been prescribed psychotropic drugs or got them in some fashion, on the street perhaps.

Or is it a chemical imbalance? You pick.

[Guest Derek L]

Another act of random senseless violence with 6 dead in California.

John Zawahri ID'd as California shooter as death told in rampage rises to six

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/death-toll-california-shooting-article-1.1367558#ixzz2Vq3QNvZn

...and the public education system seems to be getting worse as I haven't been able to find what a "death told" is. Imagine that in the headlines???

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/08/us/california-college-gunman/index.html

"Source: Santa Monica gunman previously hospitalized for mental health"

Is there really any reason to debate the actual cause of these events? Shouldn't it be obvious?

You’re merely shifting blame from a “scary AR-15” to a “pill”………Obviously one could have a room full of pills and AR-15s and they are perfectly safe……..The same applies to video games, rap music, violent music etc…

[kimmy]

Is that your very expert opinion? I haven't heard anything new from you that I hadn't already heard before. If all you can do is tell me I'm full of it then you haven't got anything.

You have entered this thread and made astounding claims with no factual support.

You claim that violence, unless motivated by personal gain, is almost always caused by drugs. That's outrageous.

You've offered a medical diagnosis and treatment advice for Argus's cousin. That's outrageous.

You've claimed that people with mental illness aren't violent unless they receive psychopharmaceuticals. That's outrageous.

You can't possibly think you can say stuff like this without somebody challenging you to prove it. Sorry, Pliny, but as someone once said: astounding claims require astounding evidence. You've offered none at all. I am doing a public service by pointing this out.

Just take a fact like reading the side-effects of these psychotropic drugs.

School shootings and movie theatre shootings, if you hear of a seemingly motiveless random act of bizarre senseless violence against innocent people, especially children, Mothers killing their children, drowning them in bathtubs, stabbing them to death, someone severing the head of a passenger on a Greyhound bus,.those kinds of things, and then, in a lot of cases kill themselves, you can be pretty sure they were or have been prescribed psychotropic drugs or got them in some fashion, on the street perhaps.

Or is it a chemical imbalance? You pick.

You've fabricated this theory based on a handful of sensationalist news incidents, while ignoring the fact that bizarre senseless violence against innocent people, mothers killing their children, and all manner of other horrible things have been going on for much longer than there's even been such thing as psychopharmaceuticals.

-k

[Pliny]

You have entered this thread and made astounding claims with no factual support.

It only takes observation.

You claim that violence, unless motivated by personal gain, is almost always caused by drugs. That's outrageous.

A little bit of a distortion.

You've offered a medical diagnosis and treatment advice for Argus's cousin. That's outrageous.

I did no such thing.

You've claimed that people with mental illness aren't violent unless they receive psychopharmaceuticals. That's outrageous.

Actually if you understand me it's mainly people who are violent that are mentally ill. The people that are labelled mentally ill

You can't possibly think you can say stuff like this without somebody challenging you to prove it. Sorry, Pliny, but as someone once said: astounding claims require astounding evidence. You've offered none at all. I am doing a public service by pointing this out.

A public service. Wow! Just trying to help, are you? It doesn't matter what I proof I cite you will refute it. I have given you things to read to get you up to speed but you do not seem interested.

You've fabricated this theory based on a handful of sensationalist news incidents, while ignoring the fact that bizarre senseless violence against innocent people, mothers killing their children, and all manner of other horrible things have been going on for much longer than there's even been such thing as psychopharmaceuticals.

-k

The public will eventually reject the carnage and make the connection. At least read the small print, the side-effects. What I have said is right there.

Are you taking these meds, kimmy?

Edited June 18, 2013 by Pliny

[Pliny]

You’re merely shifting blame from a “scary AR-15” to a “pill”………Obviously one could have a room full of pills and AR-15s and they are perfectly safe……..The same applies to video games, rap music, violent music etc…

The analogy doesn't fit. A person with a gun is still in control of his faculties. A person on a drug can lose control of himself.

[dre]

BTW... all this stuff about SSRI's causing suicide and violence in patients was the result of a metaanalysis of a number of different studies in 2004. This is what prompted the FDA to attach warnings to these drugs. A more recent study though has put those findings in dispute and my guess is those warnings will be lifted in the next couple of years.

The new study actually finds that suicidal thoughts are reduced in adults that are taking SSRI's and uneffected in children.

As for your suggestions that these drugs are to blame for a lot of these sensational killings, thats pure speculation. In order to really know that you would need to have two groups of people with mental health issues, and give one the drugs and the other a placebo.

Its a little like saying ashtrays cause cancer.

[Guest Derek L]

The analogy doesn't fit. A person with a gun is still in control of his faculties. A person on a drug can lose control of himself.

Sure it does.........The unknown factor is the person, not the gun or the pill……..There are hundreds of millions of firearms in North America, and I won’t hazard to guess how many people are one prescription pharmaceuticals, but I’ll hazard the guess as being lots……..Yet the vast majority of gun owners and prescription drug user are not homicidal maniacs.